# Hillary



## zogman

Hiden in the bowels of today's GF herald was an article that HRD's campaign finance director is charged with intentionally enderstating contribution from a 2000 Hollweid fund raising gala.

Anyone surprized???? uke:

If this was a Republican it would of big, bold and on the front page. :******:


----------



## jamartinmg2

Did you say HILLARY?


----------



## pointer99

jamartinmg2 said:


> Did you say HILLARY?


ahhhhhhhhhh the dreaded hildebeast............the woman who strikes fear in every gun totin american male and her husband and soon to be first lady. bill.

pointer


----------



## the_rookie

haha good one


----------



## Storm

Why does Hillary wear a long skirt?????.......So her Balls won't show! I couldn't resist.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## jamartinmg2




----------



## jamartinmg2




----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Last night Big Eddie was on .......CNBC, FOXNEWS or something and was saying how his choice for the next election is HILLARY CLINTON :eyeroll:


----------



## mr.trooper

NOOO! NOT THE HILDABEAST!!! ID RATHER HAVE DIANE FINSTIEN! ok not realy. i would HIDE in fear of my life in either of those battle-axes became President!


----------



## holmsvc

Didn't she already run the country once when bill was in office.


----------



## pointer99

An airplane was about to crash; there were 5 passengers on board, but only 4 parachutes. The first passenger said, "I am Kobe Bryant, the best NBA basketball player; the Lakers need me, I can't afford to die." So he took the first pack and left the plane.

The second passenger, Hillary Clinton said, "I am the wife of the former U.S. President, a Senator from New York, and a potential future president. And I am the smartest women in American history, so America's people don't want me to die." She took the second pack and jumped out of the plane.

The third passenger, Wesley Clark, said, "I'm a General in the Army of the United States of America". I am also going to be my parties nominee for President. So he grabbed the pack next to him and jumped.

The fourth passenger, President George W. Bush, said to the fifth passenger, a 10-year-old schoolgirl, "I have lived a full life, and served my country well, I will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute."

The girl said, "That's okay. There's a parachute left for you. America's smartest woman took my schoolbag."


----------



## pointer99

not to worry though.....

her thighness is still probably o.k.........the aerodynamic drag from her legs alone should slow her decent to that of a feather from thirty thousand feet.

pointer


----------



## jamartinmg2

pointer99 said:


> not to worry though.....
> 
> her thighness is still probably o.k.........the aerodynamic drag from her legs alone should slow her decent to that of a feather from thirty thousand feet.
> 
> pointer


 :lol: Whew..... that makes for a nasty image!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

jamartinmg2 said:


> :lol: Whew..... that makes for a nasty image!


You said it, I damn near lost my lunch and my scotch-a-roo bar dessert! :beer:


----------



## KEN W

You guys can make all the jokes you want....but watch out in 2008.She will be the Democratic nominee.

She will not make all the mistakes Kerry made.And he still came close to winning.Especially with Bill as her campaign manager.He would have hammered Bush if he could have run again.

If we are still mired down in Iraq,and have another terrorist attack she will have a great topic to hit the Republicans with.

Senior citizens will flock to her big time if Bush guts Social Security.

I'm not saying I would support her....but jokes now don't mean a thing 4 years from now.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

I can't stand her! Nothing to do with Dem or Rep, she just sux!


----------



## jamartinmg2

I don't think she wins in 2008...... There are many people on both sides of the fence that don't like Hillary. She doesn't enjoy the same kind of good ol' boy appeal that Bill has. She may very well be a force to be reckoned with, but she will have to work on improving her negative image if she is going to convince the folks who dislike her to vote for her.


----------



## BigDaddy

I think that Hillary could win if she ran in 2008. There are lots of folks that look back fondly on the Clinton years, and we know that Hillary was the brains behind the Clinton presidency. With Bill campaigning for her, she could win.

We must not forget that while her image may not be great in the heartland, it is fine elsewhere in the country.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If Hillary really was the brains behind the Clinton administration I wouldn't mind her being president. Get 16 great years out of the same person. I doubt she will win though, Kerry is supposed to be running again and I think the messages that he delivered in 2004 are exactly what people will be looking for in 2008.


----------



## mr.trooper

HA!

neither The Hildebeast or Johny boy stand a chance against OLE' RUMMY!!! he will beat them down with his own wrinkled hands if he has to! the only guy taht could get my vote more than Rummy is Charlton Heston!!!

P.S-i am being verry silly, im just kidding.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> neither The Hildebeast or Johny boy stand a chance against OLE' RUMMY!!!





> P.S-i am being verry silly, im just kidding.


Thank God, Rumsfeld is out of his mind and Heston is getting senile.


----------



## Storm

Hillary is a joke. She has always had her eye on the white house. Why didn't she go back to Arkansas and be a Senator from that state, or why not Illinois where she was originally from. Why did she pick New York, a state that she had no previous ties to???? I'll tell you why, it's all about electoral votes, and she knew that Arkansas small number of electoral votes ment nothing, but New York and the NorthEast hold several electoral votes and that's a big prize for a presidential race..... The Clinton years were the most unethical disgusting 8 years this country has ever had to indure. Our President was having oral sex with 20 year old interens in the oval office. Not to mention the other 150 scandals that happened along the way. Travel gate, whitewater, several clinton associates ending up dead, etc. And to top things off Billy Boy lied under oath to a Grand Jury. If you or I would of done this we would be jail and rightly so. As much as the liberal media is going to push Hillary on us, I don't think she has the same appeal as Bill does, and thank God.


----------



## mr.trooper

Militant_Tiger said:


> Thank God, Rumsfeld is out of his mind and Heston is getting senile.


but thats why i like them! Rummys ludicrously beligerant statements are the EPITOMY of the grumpy old man and Moses er, i mean Heston is just plain funny!


----------



## KEN W

The current Republican in the White House will dig such a hole in Iraq....they won't be able to climb out by 2008.There is no end in sight over there and a civil war will break out with us in the middle.

They are already preparing us for it by publicaly saying it will get worse after this Sunday's election.

Democrats will win the election in 2008.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

If this country ever votes in Hillary Clinton, I'm leaving. uke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

KEN W said:


> The current Republican in the White House will dig such a hole in Iraq....they won't be able to climb out by 2008.There is no end in sight over there and a civil war will break out with us in the middle.
> 
> Democrats will win the election in 2008.


Bingo, Bush would have to turn around nearly all of his policies and decisions, which he will not do. We will be severely in debt, still stuck in the mid east, and still having problems with other former allied countries supporting us. It will be time for a Democrat to step in and clean up the mess.


----------



## KEN W

Remmi....you have 4 years to find a new place and pack your bags.

Could be tough to find a good pheasant spot unless you leave NA.Canada has a liberal gov. also. 

She will be the first female president in US history. k:


----------



## jamartinmg2

Militant_Tiger said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current Republican in the White House will dig such a hole in Iraq....they won't be able to climb out by 2008.There is no end in sight over there and a civil war will break out with us in the middle.
> 
> Democrats will win the election in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo, Bush would have to turn around nearly all of his policies and decisions, which he will not do. We will be severely in debt, still stuck in the mid east, and still having problems with other former allied countries supporting us. It will be time for a Democrat to step in and clean up the mess.
Click to expand...

Remmi..... I've got contacts in the residential moving business. Let me know where you want to go and I'll get the ball rolling! :wink: Just kidding.... I'd most likely share the moving truck with you! 

Where do you suppose we could move where the pheasant hunting is as good as we have around here, though? I suppose we'd have to live with Hillary. :-?


----------



## Plainsman

I wouldn't worry about it. Like I said bad news for America is good news for the democrats. The liberals on here just confirmed that. If things go terrible in Iraq they think they are in in 2008.

I am not nervous yet. Remember the gulf war the democrats said Sadam's republican guard would kill thousands of Americans. They didn't. They said Sadam would hit us with biological weapons - WMD that are none existent they say now. They said Bush would never stand up to Gore. Bush won. They said Bush was so stupid Gore would annihilate him in a debate, then said the same thing again with Kerry. Bush won again. They have a history of being out of contact with reality. Let's let them dream, if they knew the truth they would be preparing better now. Run Hillary, I don't think America can sink low enough in the next four years to elect her. You think America is divided now, run Hillary (the great divider) and the radical left and right will be punching each other out in the streets.


----------



## Storm

Hillary is to liberal to be voted in as president. She may win the Democratic nomination, since it seems like you have to be a huge liberal to win the party nomination as was the case with Kerry vs. Dean. But once the primary is over the Democratic candidate has to appeal to the average american. Just like Kerry couldn't do it either will Hillary. Now if the Dems get smart and run a moderate I would say they have a good chance, but Hillary and the far left won't allow it. I also have to agree with Plainsman on the issue that the Democrats are praying and hoping that all fails in Iraq. Boy that's a nice thought to wish that all this was for not. I just watched a special on t.v. about an Army Reservist who just came back from 18 months in Iraq. He said the people o f Iraq are so happy the u.s. liberated them and now they have a real chance for freedom and democracy. But the media is going to paint the worst case scenrio of how all these people hate us and want us to go. So I pose this question to all you Dems, what if the elections go well and the u.s. is able to pull out in two years. Iraq is a stable democracy in the middle east. Then what about the 2008 elections? Bush will be talked about as one of the greatest u.s. presidents of all times. He stablized a part of the world that has been in turmoil for several decades. Not to mention all the millions of Iraq people who now have freedom. I will take a positive outlook and say that this is what I think will happen. I respect Prsident Bush for taking a chance and doing what is right. Politicians of the past would of taken a poll of the European countries to see what they should of done. This is the difference between President Bush and some presidents of the past.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

KEN W said:


> Remmi....you have 4 years to find a new place and pack your bags.
> 
> Could be tough to find a good pheasant spot unless you leave NA.Canada has a liberal gov. also.


I wonder if they have Chinese Ringnecked pheasants in CHINA!?!?!?!? :lol: :wink: :beer:


----------



## north14

Bingo! Storm you hit the nail on the head, it's all about appeal to the average American and Hilliary baby--- you aint got it.


----------



## KEN W

They probably do....but they don't let you own guns over there....no 2nd amendment or bill of rights.

Course you could probably get a job making GHG decoys at a couple $$ a day.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Like I said bad news for America is good news for the democrats. The liberals on here just confirmed that. If things go terrible in Iraq they think they are in in 2008.


So you are saying that the republicans should not be held accountable for their actions? What kind of moral value is that? Should a murderer not be held accountable for his actions too? As well, why exactly do you think the democrats want to be in office because of Iraq? Do you think if the war was going well it would even be an issue? That is a rather poor line of logic.



> He said the people o f Iraq are so happy the u.s. liberated them and now they have a real chance for freedom and democracy.


Hey really? Did he tell you how many buddies he lost too? How about how the general population doesn't want us there at all or in the first place? After all I thought the majority ruled.



> So I pose this question to all you Dems, what if the elections go well and the u.s. is able to pull out in two years. Iraq is a stable democracy in the middle east. Then what about the 2008 elections?


That would be great! I really wouldn't care who was in office as long as they didn't screw up quite so much, unfortunately the Bush administration has become professionals said subject.



> Bush will be talked about as one of the greatest u.s. presidents of all times.


And maybe then all the liberals and queers will just disappear and you can live in harmony without any opposing opinions forever and ever. Keep dreaming.



> Not to mention all the millions of Iraq people who now have freedom.


Freedom from a stable government lead by someone who kept his nose out of terrorism and ran a stable country? Yes those 16,000 some odd lives now lost sure were worth that.



> I respect Prsident Bush for taking a chance and doing what is right.


You really think that going into Iraq was the right decision? Boy with that line of logic I bet you think Hitler was a swell guy too.



> Politicians of the past would of taken a poll of the European countries to see what they should of done.


Yes, to see whether the world thought it a fair and just decision, as opposed to invading on a whim and thumbing our noses at the rest of the world. Maybe with some wack job president who would actually pay attention to what the rest of the world has to say we wouldn't have so much anti-American sentiment and would not be the target of future terror attacks. A guy like that would be crazy, heil Bush!


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT! Comparing Bush to Hitler? Whatchu been smokin' boy? I won't even bother writing a paragraph reply to that. :-?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

jamartinmg2 said:


> MT! Comparing Bush to Hitler? Whatchu been smokin' boy? I won't even bother writing a paragraph reply to that. :-?


Very similar in his attempts at colonialism, trying to fix a problem that could be solved in peace by way of bloodshed, removal of rights, unreasonable restrictions, incorrect placement of blame, misleading the public, and arrogance. You would really be surprised at the level of similarities between these two.


----------



## Storm

Tigers radical line of thought comparing Prsident Bush to Hitler is typical for a Liberal. They tend to make off the wall outlandish statements. We saw this with the protesters at the Republican convention in New York and during the inaguration last week. This radical element only pushes more people towards the Republican party and away from the Democratic party. So Tiger keep up the good work, you and your fellow radical liberals are a great assets to the Republican party.


----------



## Plainsman

Storm wrote:


> This radical element only pushes more people towards the Republican party and away from the Democratic party.


Shhhhhhhhhh quiet


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Tigers radical line of thought comparing Prsident Bush to Hitler is typical for a Liberal. They tend to make off the wall outlandish statements.


Outlandish? Perhaps, but supported by fact. There are a disgusting amount of similarities between this president and said dictator.


----------



## Plainsman

Hehehehehe


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Hehehehehe


It is funny when more than half a nation can get duped into believing complete lies, and when they turn out to be false the government can just throw out another reason why we started this war and the people will take that one just as good as the first. The liberation of a group who did not want to be liberated at the cost of nearly 20,000 lives is hilarious isin't it?


----------



## Plainsman

If half of what you post was true I would be horrified, but it isn't. Your simply mistaken, or blinded by prejudice, ie you prejudge this administration, conservatives, and perhaps others, but I haven't kept track.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> If half of what you post was true I would be horrified, but it isn't. Your simply mistaken, or blinded by prejudice, ie you prejudge this administration, conservatives, and perhaps others, but I haven't kept track.


Why do you think I have prejudice? It is not because of who they are, but because of the past 4 years of bloody terrible decisions. What exactly do I say that isin't true though. If anything I would like to ease my fears.


----------



## Plainsman

> If anything I would like to ease my fears.


Ok, that statement will make me take you serious again. A little bit anyway. The things you say like comparing Bush to Hitler are so off the wall that it is hard to take you serious. If indeed you really feel as you say then I feel sorry for you. I have always assumed you were just so radical left that you hated anyone even moderate. I don't know how to respond other than you make statements that you must pick up on those wacked out sites on the internet. That Iraq Body Count place has got to be the biggest bunch of nut cases I have ever heard of. Blaming all deaths in Iraq on us. Everyone has a right to free speech, but I think these guys, no I know they unwittingly (perhaps) aid terrorists. If I was a terrorist and belonged to a cell within the United States this is exactly what I would do. Start a site that blames America for everything. I seriously question anyone who says Sadam was running a stable government.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> A little bit anyway. The things you say like comparing Bush to Hitler are so off the wall that it is hard to take you serious.


Believe you me, I certainly don't enjoy it but in many respects the policies that Bush has set up are very similar to the fascist policies set up by Hitler in the late 30's and 40's.



> I have always assumed you were just so radical left that you hated anyone even moderate.


I love moderates. I think what this country needs right now is a good moderate who can please both groups just enough to get things done and fixed.



> I don't know how to respond other than you make statements that you must pick up on those wacked out sites on the internet.


My sites are every bit as credible as the ones that your group posts with extreme right wing propoganda and ads for tasteless buttons and shirts on the side.



> That Iraq Body Count place has got to be the biggest bunch of nut cases I have ever heard of. Blaming all deaths in Iraq on us.


Come now give it some thought. There were no car bombings in Iraq (at the most just a few) prior to the war. If there are such bombings after the invasion, it is our presence that could be the only logical answer to why it was caused.



> I seriously question anyone who says Sadam was running a stable government.


He stayed clear of terrorism, followed the sanctions, and kept out of war unless to take back its own land or to defend itself. How is this not stable?



> Everyone has a right to free speech, but I think these guys, no I know they unwittingly (perhaps) aid terrorists.


If you really believe in that, it is I who feels sorry for you, deeply sorry.


----------



## Plainsman

There is no doubt that groups like Iraq Body Count give aid to the enemy. They if nothing else give them hope that if they keep fighting groups like IBC may sway American opinion. Members of IBC group and people who disseminate their information are this decades Jane Fonda. Thanks for making us aware of radicals like IBC, I had no idea America was being so undermined by her own citizens. What a shame.

Oh, and you say you like moderates. I'm sure what you would consider moderate would make a democrat from the 1960's roll in his grave.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> There is no doubt that groups like Iraq Body Count give aid to the enemy. They if nothing else give them hope that if they keep fighting groups like IBC may sway American opinion.


I sincerely hope they do. We should have never gone to Iraq, we should not be in Iraq, I hope in the future we will not be in Iraq.



> Thanks for making us aware of radicals like IBC, I had no idea America was being so undermined by her own citizens. What a shame.


It is a problem because it goes against your opinion? You could apply the same statement to Hitlers regime and those who disagreed with it. You cannot accept that it may be your policies and opinions which are hurting America, and not those if IBC and groups like them.


----------



## Longshot

Militant_Tiger said:


> It is a problem because it goes against your opinion? You could apply the same statement to Hitlers regime and those who disagreed with it. You cannot accept that it may be your policies and opinions which are hurting America, and not those if IBC and groups like them.
Click to expand...




Militant_Tiger said:


> I'm speechless! :eyeroll:
Click to expand...


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Speechless? How so? Are you bothered by the fact that I think there must be opposing opinion to ensure a truly free country, or is it that I can draw connections between the actions of Adolf Hitler and the conservative ideology? Hitler threw all intellectuals such as musicians and professors into work camps because they knew enough to challenge what he was doing. Hitler told his people that they were hurting the war effort, and Germany itself. All of the people went along with this line of logic, and most of the intellectuals died because of it. Telling me that by having an opposing opinion is hurting the country is doing the same thing sans the camps.


----------



## adokken

I have been to several countries thruout the world in the last two years, and after letting people know I am anti Bush. they would open up and one of the most often comparism was they would compare him to Hitler, some of these lived under the Nazi occupation. incidently in Norway the consevatives came out of the wood work to support the Nazis and squeal on the friends and family. I wouldn't trust any of the fascist element in America if they gained complete control. Can you imagine that Herman Goering look alike Boil on butt Rush Slimebough being benevolent.


----------



## Plainsman

adokken

So your saying you go around the world badmouthing Bush. Whatever you think of him pulling a Dixie Chicks I think undermines us while we are at war. I didn't like Clinton, but I don't think I would have voiced that opinion overseas while we were in Kosovo. I will admit I am partisan, but I think airing our dirty laundry to the world is counter productive.


----------



## Storm

adokken, I think you might have a little French in you!  Europe is as liberal as they get. Most European countries are socialist or very close to it. Of course they are going to hate President Bush. I think it's funny that Germany, France, and Russia were all taking money from Sadamm.(Food for Oil Scandal) So there was no way they were ever going to support Iraqis gaining freedom. Forget about helping poor innocent Iraqis to gain their freedom, all Jacque Cheriak wanted was money. Presdient Bush stood up to all of them and did what was right. I wouldn't be bragging about hob knobbing around France bashing Bush with a bunch of socialist.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> adokken
> 
> So your saying you go around the world badmouthing Bush. Whatever you think of him pulling a Dixie Chicks I think undermines us while we are at war. I didn't like Clinton, but I don't think I would have voiced that opinion overseas while we were in Kosovo. I will admit I am partisan, but I think airing our dirty laundry to the world is counter productive.


Once upon a time while driving in the wrong direction Yogi Berra's friend noted "Hey Yogi we are going in the wrong direction!" to which Yogi replied "I know but we are making great time."



> adokken, I think you might have a little French in you! Europe is as liberal as they get. Most European countries are socialist or very close to it. Of course they are going to hate President Bush.


Says the man who has lived in how many countries? I was not aware that a democracy could be socialist.



> Forget about helping poor innocent Iraqis to gain their freedom, all Jacque Cheriak wanted was money.


So the reason is now to liberate the Iraqis. You guys really need to have a meeting or something, pick one lame reason for this unjust war and stick with it.



> Presdient Bush stood up to all of them and did what was right.


You really think that invading, killing over 16,000 Iraqis, throwing the area into chaos, and getting around 10,000 American troops seriously injured or killed was the right thing? You do realize that the majority of the citizens did not want us there in the first place, and don't want us there now right? I have this funny feeling that the reason so many Iraqi's got out to vote wasn't because they were so eager to try out democracy, but because they want a government in place and us gone.



> I wouldn't be bragging about hob knobbing around France bashing Bush with a bunch of socialist.


Have you no shred of self respect or logic in your being?


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT....... You inadvertantly hit the nail on the head with your last post. You seem to be caught up in the idea that we went to war for one reason and one reason only. That is just not the case. WMDs, possible terrorist ties, 911, the total disregard for UN sanctions.... all played a roll in the President's decision to go to war.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

jamartinmg2 said:


> MT....... You inadvertantly hit the nail on the head with your last post. You seem to be caught up in the idea that we went to war for one reason and one reason only. That is just not the case. WMDs, possible terrorist ties, 911, the total disregard for UN sanctions.... all played a roll in the President's decision to go to war.


Saddam never had terrorist ties, so I'm not sure where that comes from. He abided by the sanctions for the last several years, and they were working just fine. We had no hard evidence towards WMD's either. There are many other countries in the same area which were and are much larger threats to the people of the United States, and yet we went after Iraq. That bothers me.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Ok, ok..... were getting off track from the original post taking some harmless shots at Hillary, so here is a picture to get us back on track and lighten us all up a bit.


----------



## Storm

I think it is ironic that Hillary is for aborting little babies such as this one. Maybe this baby could sense this and really did want to sock her in the face. To bad all the 40,000 babies that are aborted a year won't have the same oppurtunity at life as this one will. Very sad and very sick :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> I think it is ironic that Hillary is for aborting little babies such as this one. Maybe this baby could sense this and really did want to sock her in the face. To bad all the 40,000 babies that are aborted a year won't have the same oppurtunity at life as this one will. Very sad and very sick :eyeroll:


If you were a 16 year old who was going to have to be a dad before you got out of high school, I doubt you would be against it quite so much. Learn to empathize.


----------



## Storm

How about empathizing for the baby? If I was a 16 year old young man who got a girl pregnant I would want the young lady to carry the baby to full term and then give the baby up for adoption. So then everyone is a winner, the baby who has a chance at life, the mother who will NOT carry the emotional scars of killing her baby that would be with her for the rest of her life, and the parents who were unable to have children will now have a baby. So you see Tiger I am empathizing and looking at the big picture for all involved. This is the only way to approach life. I also want to clear up a statement you made ealier. Even though it wasn't put in a very tasteful manner, it however is a good question that I'm sure many others have thought about. You asked why pro-life people don't get mad when a man masterbates and kills thousands of babies. First of all I will answer that in purely a scientific context and then I will give you a more complete answer of how the Church views this. Scientifically speaking a sperm can not produce a life by itself. It can live for up to 72 hours inside a women in the right conditions and mucas, but then the sperm will die. As a Christian would say a sperm and ovum (Womens egg) have a short life, but it does *NOT* have an IMMORTAL Soul. When that sperm dies it's not either going to heaven or hell. When the two (Sperm and Egg) come together now you have an Immortal soul, and where does this Immortal soul come from? It comes from a new act of creation by God. Each act of conception there needs to be a new act of creation by God. When new human life is created the whole universe has changed. Becasue now something has came into existance which didn't exist before. It's like when God made the whole universe he made something from nothing. Now he has made a new soul from nothing. It's not like there is a whole bunch of souls out there waiting for a place to land. God has performed a new act of creation. That is why life begins at conception. You have an immortal soul Tiger just like everyone else and this came about at conception. If you don't agree with this, tell me when you were blessed with an immortal soul.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> As a Christian would say a sperm and ovum (Womens egg) have a short life, but it does NOT have an IMMORTAL Soul.


And this is where you get shifty. If a fetus which lacks conscious thought or the ability to survive on its own is a person and has a soul, why does a sperm not? It also has the potential to become a person, and it lacks conscious thought and the ability to survive on it's own. Either the sperm is a person too, or a fetus is not a person, this is another situation where you can't have it both ways.



> How about empathizing for the baby? If I was a 16 year old young man who got a girl pregnant I would want the young lady to carry the baby to full term and then give the baby up for adoption. So then everyone is a winner, the baby who has a chance at life, the mother who will NOT carry the emotional scars of killing her baby that would be with her for the rest of her life, and the parents who were unable to have children will now have a baby.


This is assuming that the home that the child will go to is warm and loving, but how can the mother possibly agree to putting her own spawn out in the world in an enviornment that she will not know the truth of? How would you feel about giving up your child to a person who you have never met before?



> It's not like there is a whole bunch of souls out there waiting for a place to land.


If this was so, and a fetus was aborted before birth, would the soul not rise again to wait for a suitable host? I firmly believe that God is just, I cannot see how he would send a soul to hell for something beyond their choice.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> If you were a 16 year old who was going to have to be a dad before you got out of high school, I doubt you would be against it quite so much. Learn to empathize.


Maybe the little 16 year old crybaby should learn to keep his thing in his pants where it belongs until he is old enough to care for a child. Or at the very least wear a condom. If he does not want to do either of these then he can pay for his mistakes like everyone else. He can go to work, even if it is at McDonalds in the evening while he finishes school, and instead of buying $2000 stereo systems for his $500 car, he can pay child support to the mother. Yeah, it'll be tough, and he will have a hard life, it's a ***** to be an adult ain't it.

My stepdaughter got pregnant at 17, it certainly ruined her plans to go to New York to study acting, she had already been accepted, abortion was never even considered.

There may be reasons for abortion but, regardless of how you spin it M_T, it should not be used as a form of birth control because some whiney-a$$ed teenager couldn't keep it in his pants on Saturday night.

huntin1


----------



## Storm

Tiger you bring up some good points, but I can answer them all for you. The Church isn't getting shifty at all on the issue of when a person obtains an Immortal Soul. The difference between a sperm and fetus is great. Like I stated in the ealier post, if you leave a sperm inside of a women without having contact with a egg it will die within 72 hours. The sperm on its own has no chance of becoming a rational being. We all know what happens when a sperm connects with an egg. It has the potential to live over 100 years, this is evident by going into any resthome. The sperms full potential is only reached if it connects with an egg. Also I have to point out that your idea of life not occuring unless conscious thought exist is unfounded. If we were to believe that statement, then we have to say that people who are in a vegative state, from accidents or sickness, aren't real people with immortal souls. This is of course is not true.

I will again address your point that it is better to kill a fetus than to allow it to grow up in a not so "warm and loving home" as you put it. We have talked about this before, but here it goes again. Go ask any abused child, or adult who was abused if it would of been better that they would of been aborted. Do you think you will get any takers? There is always hope for the child that they will be taken out of a bad envirnment, or that their situation will turn for the better. With abortion there is no hope, only a dead baby.

You make a statement that "how can a mother possibly agree with putting her "Spawn" (I didn't realize babies were fish)  out in the world in an environment that she will not know the truth of." They do have open adoptions where the biological mother can keep in touch with their children as they grow up with their adopted family. In most cases it is up to the biological mother to decide if they want to choose to do this. Every adoption agency is going to screen potential families wishing to adopt very carefully. They aren't going to allow adopted children to be released to abusive homes. Not to say such things don't accasionally happen, but this is the exeception not the rule. And there is overwhelming evidence that shows that women who choose to kill their baby have a 75% greater chance of mental illness in the form of depression and suicidal thoughts throughout there life. Women who make the right decision to give up their child for adoption have the peace of mind of knowing that they allowed their child a chance at life.

You seem to doubt my statement that their are *not* a bunch of souls out there waiting for a place to land. I don't even really understand your question, but will do my best to answer it. the Church teaches that once conception occurs that life has a soul. If that baby is aborted than that soul is going somewhere, and more than likely it is heaven. It doen'st go back up into space waiting for the next aborted baby to join it. You made a great point Tiger, God is just, so more than likely he isn't going to damn a babies soul to hell, but if I was an abortion doctor or someone who promoted the killing of innocent life I would repent as soon as possible, because God is Just as you pointed out, and I don't have to explain where those souls are more than likely going to end up.


----------



## Storm

Tiger you never did anwer my question...when do you think a persons soul comes into existance?


----------



## tb

This is one of the most HILARY-ous threads I've ever skimmed. I'm not going to take the time to read the posts word-for-word, but I'm glad most of you guys are better bird hunters than politicians.

For the record, on February 2, 2005, two low level beings offered prognostications for the coming year. One gave broad meaningless and generally inaccurate predictions about the state of the union and of other things to come this next year. The other was a groundhog.

For record, I voted for Nader in 2004 and I'd vote for Hilary in a heart beat. Her little toe forgot more that W ever knew.

I kinda think you macho guys that hate Hilary kinda hate the idea of any woman being higher up the food chain than you, and maybe have a little problem with your macho-ness. Get it - 'little' problem. Or is it a 'little-ness' problem? Tell me.


----------



## Storm

It has nothing to do with the fact that Hillary is women why I wouldn't vote for her. Condaliza Rice would more than likely make a great preisdent. Hillary's problem is that she is a flaming liberal that stands for everything I am agianst, morally, ethically, and financially. I hope the Democrats choose her as their candidate, because she doesn't have a chance.....to Liberal. President Bush has done great things and at least he has the backbone to stand up and do what he says he is going to do. The Clintons would propose an idea and then take three or four polls in the United States and France and then decide if they should actually follow through. What a Joke.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The sperm on its own has no chance of becoming a rational being.


Either does the fetus, without the mother it will die, just as the sperm without an egg will die.



> Maybe the little 16 year old crybaby should learn to keep his thing in his pants where it belongs until he is old enough to care for a child. Or at the very least wear a condom.


Agreed prevention is the best method, but who are we to tell someone that they must be penalized for the rest of their lives because of something they did while drunk at a party, especially someone who does not fully comprehend the results of their actions?



> He can go to work, even if it is at McDonalds in the evening while he finishes school, and instead of buying $2000 stereo systems for his $500 car, he can pay child support to the mother. Yeah, it'll be tough, and he will have a hard life, it's a b#tch to be an adult ain't it.


Work thru college and pay for a child at the same time? What an unlikely situation that would be.



> There may be reasons for abortion but, regardless of how you spin it M_T, it should not be used as a form of birth control because some whiney-a$$ed teenager couldn't keep it in his pants on Saturday night.


It almost sounds like you just want the child to be their responsibility out of spite.



> Also I have to point out that your idea of life not occuring unless conscious thought exist is unfounded.


If you cannot consciously think, then you cannot believe in God. If you cannot believe in God there is no immortal spirit.



> If we were to believe that statement, then we have to say that people who are in a vegative state, from accidents or sickness, aren't real people with immortal souls. This is of course is not true.


How do we know? I have personally not been dead to tell the answers to such mysteries, and I doubt that you have either. Someone in a vegetative state from some ailment may not have a soul at all. Perhaps the soul passes on as though the body is dead when conscious thought is lost.



> Go ask any abused child, or adult who was abused if it would of been better that they would of been aborted.


This is assuming that a soul is damned if it is aborted before conscious thought develops. As previously stated I do not believe our God would do such a thing. If a child is aborted its soul may very well go back into waiting for another host. This would mean that you have gotten rid of the body, not the soul which has another chance at life, hopefully a better one than the one which they were aborted from.



> the Church teaches that once conception occurs that life has a soul.


The church teaches that a soul is GIVEN. The soul always exists, hence why God knew us before we were born.



> If that baby is aborted than that soul is going somewhere, and more than likely it is heaven.


Why is Heaven a more likely choice than back from whence it came?



> You made a great point Tiger, God is just, so more than likely he isn't going to damn a babies soul to hell, but if I was an abortion doctor or someone who promoted the killing of innocent life I would repent as soon as possible, because God is Just as you pointed out, and I don't have to explain where those souls are more than likely going to end up.


Wouldn't you just hate it if God was a liberal?


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> He can go to work, even if it is at McDonalds in the evening while he finishes school, and instead of buying $2000 stereo systems for his $500 car, he can pay child support to the mother. Yeah, it'll be tough, and he will have a hard life, it's a b#tch to be an adult ain't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Work thru college and pay for a child at the same time? What an unlikely situation that would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be reasons for abortion but, regardless of how you spin it M_T, it should not be used as a form of birth control because some whiney-a$$ed teenager couldn't keep it in his pants on Saturday night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It almost sounds like you just want the child to be their responsibility out of spite.
Click to expand...

Why would this be an unlikely situation, I worked full time and put myself through college while supporting 4 kids. Lots of people do it, at least those who have a sense of responsibility. And spite has nothing to do with it, they are responsible for the child whether they like it or not. Ya gots to pay to play, not willing to pay the price, stay at home and play video games.

huntin1


----------



## Storm

Tiger you never did answer my question. When do you think a person obtains an immortal soul? As to all your other statements from the last post, I don't have a response. I'll let other people who read this thread decide for themselves who made a more accurate point. Your points make no sense. Except I will make one comment, the best prevention of pregnancy is abstinence, not wearing a condom as you stated. It is also better for all involved since 16 years olds that are engaging in pre-martial sex suffer emotional scars, especially girls. I do find your responses entertaining Tiger but not very thoughtout.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Maybe the little 16 year old crybaby should learn to keep his thing in his pants where it belongs until he is old enough to care for a child. Or at the very least wear a condom.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed prevention is the best method, but who are we to tell someone that they must be penalized for the rest of their lives because of something they did while drunk at a party, especially someone who does not fully comprehend the results of their actions?
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this statement and it is a typical teenaged response. Being drunk does not excuse your actions, neither does fully comprehending the results of your actions. Using your reasoning a person should be able to get drunk, drive a car, kill someone while driving that car and not be held accountable for that life he took. I mean hey, he was drunk, he didn't know what he was doing. What a crock of bull****. The single biggest problem with society today is the refusal to accept responsibility for your actions.

M_T, I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I have been there and done that on more than one occasion. If you are so drunk you don't know what you are doing, you ain't gonna be doing what we are talking about. Drunk or not you know what you are doing and you know what can happen. You just refuse to admit that it will happen to you.

I'll say it again, if a person cannot accept responsibility for his own actions then he should stay home and play video games on Saturday night.

And yes we can tell a person that he is to be penalized for his actions. That is part of living in a society. Your actions produce results and you are responsible for those results. Deal with it.

huntin1


----------



## njsimonson

That is a tough one, not to help this skew theological or philosophical, but the soul question is good.

I think a soul is a perpetually existing thing. I'm just guessing, I don't really know. It probably existed prior to birth in my mind. It probably never dies, even when the body does. That's what makes the idea of Hell so scary.

There's an eastern philosophy that when we die, we drink from the river that makes us forget what our past life was, and we return to Earth from Heaven if we so desire...now, I have no proof, but that does make an interesting point...when do your beliefs about the soul's creation influence your views on abortion.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Storm said:


> Tiger you never did answer my question. When do you think a person obtains an immortal soul? As to all your other statements from the last post, I don't have a response. I'll let other people who read this thread decide for themselves who made a more accurate point. Your points make no sense. Except I will make one comment, the best prevention of pregnancy is abstinence, not wearing a condom as you stated. It is also better for all involved since 16 years olds that are engaging in pre-martial sex suffer emotional scars, especially girls. I do find your responses entertaining Tiger but not very thoughtout.


You seem to make a habit of sneeking questions in and then acting like I purposely didn't answer them, a decent tactic to wear down my credibility. I believe that a child gains an immortal soul when conscious thought is developed, this could have been deciphered out of my comments in multiple posts though.

As to my points which made no sense, if you would like to tell me why on a case by case basis I would be happy to argue them out. Simply stating that I don't make sense doesn't do anyone any good.



> I've been thinking about this statement and it is a typical teenaged response. Being drunk does not excuse your actions, neither does fully comprehending the results of your actions.


Drunk? No it does not excuse your actions. If you kill a person in a drunken stuper you are surely not free to go. Alcocol does affect a persons judgement however, thus why I factored it in. Not knowing the results of your actions also affects the verdict in many cases. Someone who is too crazy to realize what they are doing cannot be held accountable, at least not to the extent of someone who is sane. A child of four cannot be held accountable for a gun crime. A teenager with little or no knowledge of what is entailed with the birth of a child cannot be held fully accountable either. Your logic huntin appears to be "You dug your grave, let me fill it in on you".


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> As to my points which made no sense, if you would like to tell me why on a case by case basis I would be happy to argue them out. Simply stating that I don't make sense doesn't do anyone any good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about this statement and it is a typical teenaged response. Being drunk does not excuse your actions, neither does fully comprehending the results of your actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Drunk? No it does not excuse your actions. If you kill a person in a drunken stuper you are surely not free to go. Alcocol does affect a persons judgement however, thus why I factored it in. Not knowing the results of your actions also affects the verdict in many cases. Someone who is too crazy to realize what they are doing cannot be held accountable, at least not to the extent of someone who is sane. A child of four cannot be held accountable for a gun crime. A teenager with little or no knowledge of what is entailed with the birth of a child cannot be held fully accountable either. Your logic huntin appears to be "You dug your grave, let me fill it in on you".
Click to expand...

So sayeth ye of little knowledge. BS meter is spiked out all the way.

Alcohol does affect judgement but the courts have ruled time and again that you will still be held accountable for your actions when drunk.

A crazy person is held accountable, if their capacity is diminished they are held in a mental institution until such time that they are capable of understanding, when they are found to comprehend, they are tried and punished for their crime.

A child of four does not know right from wrong, at least in a legal sense. A teenager does.

I don't know about you M_T but my kids took sex ed in school, they were taught what is entailed including having a "computerized baby" in the form of a doll that cried at all hours of the day or night and needed to be "fed" have their "diaper" changed, or just be held.

Teenagers know what is entailed, they have sex anyway, either not caring about the consequences, or having that "it ain't going to happen to me" attitude, so yes they can and should be held responsible.

My logic is, you dug your grave and pulled the dirt in after you, now deal with it.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Alcohol does affect judgement but the courts have ruled time and again that you will still be held accountable for your actions when drunk.


Yes but to a lesser extent. If while piss drunk you commit a crime you are not liable to be sentenced the same as someone who commited it while sober.



> I don't know about you M_T but my kids took sex ed in school, they were taught what is entailed including having a "computerized baby" in the form of a doll that cried at all hours of the day or night and needed to be "fed" have their "diaper" changed, or just be held.


Did you really learn anything from sex-ed? I most certainly did not, and I doubt your kids did either. The only time when someone is given a computer child in my school is if they take a girls homemaking class.



> Teenagers know what is entailed, they have sex anyway, either not caring about the consequences, or having that "it ain't going to happen to me" attitude, so yes they can and should be held responsible.


You did not have sex before marriage? Understand that you will never end premarital sex, it has been going on since the dawn of man. What you have said is like saying that you can hold a child accountable for shooting their friend because they didn't think the gun was loaded. What kind of logic is that?


----------



## mr.trooper

NOTICE: TO ALL WACKED OUT LIBERALS-

If Bush was even one iota like Hittler, then YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS WOULD BE DEAD, FACE DOWN IN A DITCH right now. BUT YOUR NOT; egro, Bush is NOTHING like hittler. Get over it. you lost. Boo-Hoo.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> Alcohol does affect judgement but the courts have ruled time and again that you will still be held accountable for your actions when drunk.
> 
> Yes but to a lesser extent. If while piss drunk you commit a crime you are not liable to be sentenced the same as someone who commited it while sober.
> 
> 
> 
> BS, I've been involved in enough court trials to know that you know nothing of what you are saying here.
> 
> 
> 
> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you M_T but my kids took sex ed in school, they were taught what is entailed including having a "computerized baby" in the form of a doll that cried at all hours of the day or night and needed to be "fed" have their "diaper" changed, or just be held.
> 
> Did you really learn anything from sex-ed? I most certainly did not, and I doubt your kids did either. The only time when someone is given a computer child in my school is if they take a girls homemaking class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS again, you learn enough to know what happens as a result of sexual intercourse. If not learned there you learn it at home. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that a 16 year old does not know what happens as a result of having sex? What planet are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teenagers know what is entailed, they have sex anyway, either not caring about the consequences, or having that "it ain't going to happen to me" attitude, so yes they can and should be held responsible.
> 
> You did not have sex before marriage? Understand that you will never end premarital sex, it has been going on since the dawn of man. What you have said is like saying that you can hold a child accountable for shooting their friend because they didn't think the gun was loaded. What kind of logic is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I did not say that I was trying to end premarital sex, nor did I say that I did not participate in premarital sex. What I said was that if you want to participate in sexual intercourse, then you must also accept the responsibility for whatever may happen as a result of that activity. Does that spell it out clearly enough for you. ACCEPT RESPOSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Why shouldn't someone who shoots another person be held accountable. What is your logic? I didn't think the gun was loaded? What kind of BS is that. If you don't know how to handle a firearm leave it alone. If a child shoots their friend with an "unloaded gun" they should most definately be held accountable, and if the parents have firearms in the home and do not educate their children about those firearms then they too, should be held accountable. This would be a tradgedy that could have been avoided with a little bit of education.

You don't get it M_T and it is very simple. *ACCEPT RESPOSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.*

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> NOTICE: TO ALL WACKED OUT LIBERALS-
> 
> If Bush was even one iota like Hittler, then YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL FRIENDS WOULD BE DEAD, FACE DOWN IN A DITCH right now. BUT YOUR NOT; egro, Bush is NOTHING like hittler. Get over it. you lost. Boo-Hoo.


Simply because they do not use the same methods does not mean they are not similar. The liberals are still pointed out as hurting the supposed greater good, conquest of an imperical fashion is still justified under false means, etc...


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT if you are so right then the next time you get a chance tell a few WW II vets your comparison. Then when they have re-educated you about history come back and post up again! Stuff like that sickens me to no end.


----------



## Storm

Tiger,
I don't have a habit of slipping questions in on you. I ask you direct questions. I will argue a couple of points that are key in the abortion debate. I gather that you do have some faith in God so we can both agree that as humans we obtain a soul at some point in our life. Your idea that our soul has always existed is an arguement that I have heard before, and I can see where this can get confusing. What we must all realize as Christians, is that God is Omnipotent. Which means he is all knowing, all loving, and all powerful. God is the begining and end. God knows everything in the past, present, and future tense, but we as mortals can't do this. This is so far over our heads as mortal beings we can't even begin to comprehend this. That is why we call God....God. That is also why we must have Faith to be Christians. Since we are only mortal beings we live in time, that is why we have to put a time on when a human obtains an immortal soul. As pointed out ealier a sperm can not live on it's own, and an egg can not live on its own for any length of time. But when the two come together they form a life, better known as a baby. God created something from nothing. Now that baby may not be able to live on its own now, but with the help of a mother that baby will be able to funtion on its own within 6 months, and can live to be over 100 years old. This is just how God intended it to be, how we carry on LIFE. Thus you obtain your soul at conception.

I need to argue one other point. If you think a person doesn't obtain an immortal soul until conscious thought than that would mean a new born of 6 months would not have a soul, that would mean when you sleep you lose your soul, that would mean a person who is involved in an accident and is in a vegatative state would lose their soul. This is proved false by the fact that when that person awakes from a comma they have a soul. When you awake from sleeping you have a soul. Conscious thought has nothing to do having a soul. You obtain a soul at conception and it will last forever, hence the name "Immortal Soul." And as this can be a scary thought, especially for the soul that is damn to hell for eternity. But the soul that makes it to Heaven will have eternal happiness. I sincerely hope all of our souls make it to heaven.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Ron Gilmore said:


> MT if you are so right then the next time you get a chance tell a few WW II vets your comparison. Then when they have re-educated you about history come back and post up again! Stuff like that sickens me to no end.


If I am not mistaken Adokken is a WWII vet himself, and he stated that the comparison was quite accurate. I am a big fan of studing history, especially the second world war. Why does it sicken you so badly?



> I don't have a habit of slipping questions in on you. I ask you direct questions.


Perhaps not, but I evidently miss them and you try to make it seem as if I am avoiding them.



> As pointed out ealier a sperm can not live on it's own, and an egg can not live on its own for any length of time. But when the two come together they form a life, better known as a baby.


Abortion does not deal with a baby, it deals with a fetus. These are very seperate entities, for me at least as I see that the soul becomes present when conscious thought is developed.



> Thus you obtain your soul at conception.


Thus nothing, all you have stated is that with proper tending a fetus can eventually become an adult, this is like saying that a seed and an apple are the same, as a properly nurtured seed will produce apples as a tree.



> I need to argue one other point. If you think a person doesn't obtain an immortal soul until conscious thought than that would mean a new born of 6 months would not have a soul, that would mean when you sleep you lose your soul, that would mean a person who is involved in an accident and is in a vegatative state would lose their soul.


Perhaps you are right and I should just call it thought. When we sleep we most certainly have a soul, and though semi conscious we are not fully aware, the same with a baby. I do believe that a soul may be stripped of its human form if someone was put into a vegetative state. I feel that the soul may have already left the body as it would in death.



> This is proved false by the fact that when that person awakes from a comma they have a soul.


Who is to say that a soul cannot return? As well it is thought that some people in a coma still have brain activity and can understand words, but cannot move.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Why does it sicken you so badly?


I guess you have never met someone that has the tattoo from one of the Death camps, or talked to one of the soldiers that entered some of the POW camps and liberated our own people. Your flippant attitude is so pathetic about the sacrifice and hardship that went on during that time in history.

Show me one incinerator or mass grave that GW has ordered upon American citizens. Bush was elected by a voting population that had no guns to there head or feared for the safety of their family when they voted. If you are so interested in history you would not make such a stupid and ignorant comparison. If GW is so much like Hitler then you should really leave your home immediately as you disagree with him on all issues he will be sending the Secret Police to your door. Make sure your family leaves also and your friends and relatives as they will be tortured to find your destination.

THAT IS WHY IT SICKENS ME AND ANYONE ELSE THAT MAKES THIS TYPE OF STATEMENT EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO SAY THESE THINGS! IT IS TIME YOU GREW UP !


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I guess you have never met someone that has the tattoo from one of the Death camps, or talked to one of the soldiers that entered some of the POW camps and liberated our own people. Your flippant attitude is so pathetic about the sacrifice and hardship that went on during that time in history.


You speak out of complete ignorance, my people withstood the greatest massacre of any race in the history of man. Simply because the intellectuals are not being put into death camps today does not mean that the same goals are being achieved.



> Bush was elected by a voting population that had no guns to there head or feared for the safety of their family when they voted.


Either was Hitler.



> If GW is so much like Hitler then you should really leave your home immediately as you disagree with him on all issues he will be sending the Secret Police to your door.


Why is it that to be similar issues have to be congruent? Does this mean that Saddam was not Stalinesque because he did not use the Russian secret police to torture his people?

http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm

This makes a few decent points.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You still want to try and draw a parallel of actions to Hitler and Bush because your ideology does not allow you to accept the fact that they are as far apart as a horse and a lion. Having to spoon feed you this is not worth the time. Remove the chip from your shoulder and take responsibility for yourself instead of looking to others to do it for you.

Remember this, GW has a Condi in his cabinet, Hitler would have had her shot. GW has never turned his back upon a athlete based on color or religion, yet Hitler did just that during the Olympics. He refused to acknowledge Jesse Owens. Things have not alway been fair in this country to some races, but today the color of your skin or your heritage is not going to get you sent to a death camp to purify the population.

[/quote]


----------



## DJRooster

Blame game... And now Jose Canseco says that GW condoned steroid use by his players when he was part owner of the Texas Rangers! I would rather hear Canseco kiss and tell about all the groupies he had while he was a professional baseball player than kiss and tell about his steroid use!!


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> You speak out of complete ignorance, my people withstood the greatest massacre of any race in the history of man. Simply because the intellectuals are not being put into death camps today does not mean that the same goals are being achieved.


So you must be Jewish M_T, I don't recall any people that have suffered a massacre on the scale of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler.

And it really shows your ignorance and closeminded liberal viewpoint to even compare GW to Hitler. You obviously know very little of the history of that era.

huntin1


----------



## DJRooster

Only two please... Hillary, George W and Hitler. Which one would you not vote for? Hitler does not belong in the same discussion as the other two as they have nothing in common with Adolf. Please give us a break.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Remove the chip from your shoulder and take responsibility for yourself instead of looking to others to do it for you.


Does this have any actual meaning or are you just trying to lob random insults hoping that some will stick?



> Remember this, GW has a Condi in his cabinet, Hitler would have had her shot.


She agrees with his ideology fully, and hopefully reaches out to women and blacks. Big deal.



> Things have not alway been fair in this country to some races, but today the color of your skin or your heritage is not going to get you sent to a death camp to purify the population.


I have never stated that Bush was a mirror of Hitler, I simply see a connection between the ways that they have handled many similar issues.



> So you must be Jewish M_T, I don't recall any people that have suffered a massacre on the scale of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler.


I am not Jewish, my people suffered yet greater massacre. They are however forgotten by most of the world.



> And it really shows your ignorance and closeminded liberal viewpoint to even compare GW to Hitler. You obviously know very little of the history of that era.


You shoot out so quickly with ignorant, yet I have studied very much about that period. Bush has used many of the same approaches to similar problems as Hitler.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> I am not Jewish, my people suffered yet greater massacre. They are however forgotten by most of the world.


So what massacre are you talking about, what people are you talking about?

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman

Hunt1

I don't think there are any great massacres that were worse than the Jewish prison camps in WWII. There are some claims that I don't believe out there. By that I mean I have heard of some long ago, but when you start looking at population dynamics it wasn't possible for that many people to have been killed. Many people don't realize how the earth's population has progressed. There are more people alive today than have lived throughout history. Go back 50 years and that was also true then. If you get back to the 1700's and early 1800's some continental populations didn't have as many people as were claimed to have been killed. Any great massacre simply isn't statistically valid.


----------



## mhprecht

Its facinating to watch how the discussion of a particular topic changes over time until it no longer resembles the original question.

"The Council of Elders," (you know, those old guys who meet for breakfast, coffee, and conversation on Saturdays) have discussed this topic several times. The consensus is that Hillary could win in 2008. It will depend who her opponent might be. My vote is for Condie Rice in 2008.

Mike


----------



## Plainsman

mhprecht

I may vote with you on that. I don't know enough about her yet. Currently she does what the administration says like a good team player, but have you heard anything about what she believes. I would guess it has to be close to Bush or he would not have her. She might be the current best choice.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Hunt1
> 
> I don't think there are any great massacres that were worse than the Jewish prison camps in WWII. There are some claims that I don't believe out there. By that I mean I have heard of some long ago, but when you start looking at population dynamics it wasn't possible for that many people to have been killed. Many people don't realize how the earth's population has progressed. There are more people alive today than have lived throughout history. Go back 50 years and that was also true then. If you get back to the 1700's and early 1800's some continental populations didn't have as many people as were claimed to have been killed. Any great massacre simply isn't statistically valid.


Your ignorance is astounding. Apparently your statistics (I guess they took censi back in the early 1900's) are more valid than the firsthand accounts.


----------



## huntin1

M_T

So are you going to answer my question or is this more of your usual smoke and mirrors crap?

huntin1


----------



## Bobm

Militant_Tiger wrote: 


> I am not Jewish, my people suffered yet greater massacre. They are however forgotten by most of the world.


huntin1 logically Asks???


> So what massacre are you talking about, what people are you talking about?


It should be obvious huntin 1, his people are "know it all" teenagers (the all too common ignoramusteenagerus :lol: )
the massacre he speaks of is when they have to grow up :lol: :lol: real life finally slays the poor teenagerus :lol: :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You could have done a bit of research, google would tell fairly quickly. I was speaking of the Armenian genocide.


----------



## huntin1

M_T,

Oh, of course the Armenian genocide.

I guess I had not thought of that because you said:



Militant_Tiger said:


> I am not Jewish, my people suffered yet greater massacre. They are however forgotten by most of the world.


Now don't get me wrong here, I do not want you to think that I am downplaying the tradgedy of the Armenian people. But, your statement was very clear, "my people suffered yet greater massacre." And doing the research as you suggested I found that 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives. The holocaust accounted for 11 million people, 5,860,000 Jews and the rest largely Polish non-Jews.

Nonetheless, I am sorry that your people had to endure this tradgedy.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The holocaust accounted for 11 million people, 5,860,000 Jews and the rest largely Polish non-Jews.


I was under the impression that the Jews lost just under a million, I guess my facts got mixed up. Thank you for your condolences.

Boy do I feel silly now, I have no idea how I got that messed up. I assume that I was thinking percentage out of the whole, which is far closer.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I also checked it out. It matters little if it was 100 people or 100 million no one regardless of religion, race, or any other reason should face such tragedy. It's hard to understand how people can look at another human and think their life is worth so little.

The statement I made about not that many people could possibly have been killed involved a statement by a New York politician that millions (don't remember if it was 6 or 60)Africans had been cast overboard on the way to the United States during the slave trade. Again one or a million does not matter, because one is more than should have died. However, I get upset with these claims because they do little more than fuel hatred. We wonder why they have been fighting in Kosavo for three thousand years. Because they hold grudges and exaggerate atrocities to keep the hatred alive.

I would guess that if we could turn back the clock of history we would find that at one time or another every nationality on earth has been a victim, and a perpetrator. We need to remember history so as not to repeat it, but we all need to forgive or it is our life that suffers.


----------



## Storm

I too am sorry to here about the Armenian people, or any group of people being massacred. I am amazed how people can be so animalistic. This has happening throughout time. As soon as people get away from the teachings of Christ "Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself," they open themselves up to all kinds of things. Unforntunantly this often times leads to Genocide of fellow humans.


----------

