# This was was all Bush's idea. He lied to us.



## sdeprie

Where Bush Got His Marching Orders

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.


----------



## deacon

That is great stuff Steve. Shows you can't trust any politician, all they care about is re-election. They must be getting some pretty good perks to lie so much.

Bring on the third party, time to return this country to the Common Man!


----------



## racer66

So the third party would not be political?


----------



## sevendogs

Sure he did and he keeps doing so again and again. I hope this will be over for him soon. Go to vote.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Watching Kerry avoid every question last night was disgusting. He never once addressed the question directly and keeps saying he has a plan for everything yet he never elaborates on what it is. Atleast w/ PRESIDENT BUSH you know where the man stands........if not by his words, by his body language and I like a man like that! :sniper:


----------



## sdeprie

I only listened to one question. When Kerry stood up there and told us he was a hunter and proud gunowner and he would protect our 2nd ammendment rights, I nearly threw up. That was all I could handle.


----------



## racer66

I had to run for the (john) on that one to.


----------



## Matt Jones

Remmi_&_I said:


> Watching Kerry avoid every question last night was disgusting. He never once addressed the question directly and keeps saying he has a plan for everything yet he never elaborates on what it is. Atleast w/ PRESIDENT BUSH you know where the man stands........if not by his words, by his body language and I like a man like that! :sniper:


That is exactly my problem with Bush...he won't change his position on anything even when he knows he's in the wrong. He was asked whether or not he would have done anything differently (in regards to Iraq) given the information we have to day, and what did he reply with? That he would have done everything the same. To me that is complete BS. Especially after him and Cheney recently conceded that Iraq did not have WMD's.

Don't get me wrong here...I voted for Bush. AND I was 100% completely behind Bush when we chose to go into Iraq. BUT if you can honestly look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that we did everything PERFECT in regards to Iraq, knowing what we know now, then you're either lying to yourself or you're just a colossal idiot.

I'd have much more respect for Bush if he would just deflate his ego a little bit and admit our information that we had on Saddam and Iraq wasn't accurate. Like sdeprie's post has stated, Bush wasn't the only one who had received this false information...Although I do personally think Bush's family history also had something to do with his gung-ho approach. Either way the man was given false information. He was then forced to make a huge decision based on this false information. I'd rather have him tell us that he made a mistake because he didn't have all the facts straight due to our intelligence agency's letting us down instead of being straightforward and saying "He would have done everything the same."

Either way, Saddam had neither WMD's or a nuclear program. The weapons he did have were for defense against the other many turbelent countries in the region. Saddam wasn't a big enough threat after 1991 to justify this war. He was only a threat to his own people, not the USA.


----------



## sdeprie

I will admit that I don't have time to read that whole response. But the line that got me was that Hussein didn't have WMD's. What have you been smoking? He DID have WMD's, and they were weren't for defense. He used them on his own people, in aggression and genocide. He was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. I suppose we should have waited until he had them, eh? Do we learn nothing from history? If you don't want to believe him, just say so.


----------



## jacks

I understand where you are coming from Matt, but one thing you are not thinking about is the troops. I really think it would be stupid for our leader to say we messed up while our troops are still fighting. I think he is being very careful in what he says unlike Kerry who says wrong war wrong place wrong time. What kind of message do you think that says to our troops who are working hard over there. Everyone wants to just here Bush say he screwed up without caring about the soldiers. Remember what all the other politicians said about needing to go to Iraq with the same info Bush had.


----------



## Plainsman

Bush is president and has to be careful what he says because what he says influences other nations, and the morale of our men and women in Iraq. Also, some things may be classified. Kerry on the other hand can make many off the wall statements. He says Bush isn't concerned about Osama, but that he would capture him quickly. He has a plan. Ya right. Perhaps he does know where Osama is. Do you suppose he has made contact with him like he did Hanoi? Ha ha, only joking. I was trying to see if I could be as ridiculous as some of the posts on other subjects, like Bush is wired etc., but I give up.

Anyway, I would like to see the campaign go a little longer because Kerry looks more silly day by day. I think the credibility gap is widening each day, and that by election Bush should have a better chance than he does today. I think the grasping at straws that liberals do, even on this site, changes the minds of many undecided. I am thankful for the careless rhetoric of liberals on this site. Through their reckless abandonment and loss of credibility they have secured far more votes for Bush than we conservatives could have without them. It works by guilt through association. You see if you support Kerry, and blow your credibility when talking about Bush's National Guard records, Bush's draft plan, Bush is wired etc. then people see you and Kerry with little credibility. Good job libs, don't stop now.


----------



## sevendogs

Great! It tells us that Clinton and his administration were smart to talk tough, but they did not send ground troops there. Bush did and it was his mistake. May be Iraq is better without Saddam, but it is not better, because of presence of 60% of population Shiites. They will establish Islamic state, antidemocratic one, regardless of presence of our trooops. I am sorry for Kerry, who would inherite this problem. Better elect Bush. Bush would have it all and those idiots, who vote for him would get a president, which they deserve.


----------



## mr.trooper

um, Seven, we like Bush, therefore you wouldnt be punishing us by giving him back the office...


----------



## sdeprie

If anyone is interested in what active duty Marines think, according to a poll listed in the Marine Times (my neghbor gets it) they support Bush with 78% for him. That tells me the morale isn't nearly as bad as the liberal press paints it to be. Now, these are the guys (and girls) who are actually there, or ready to go there, etc. Actually ready to put their lives on the line. Just thought you might want to know.


----------



## Plainsman

Sdeprie

I am becoming more optimistic every day. Another good indicator that Bush is doing well is the panic of the liberals. Remember when MT would debate logically. He has given over completely now to the dark side. Darth Tiger can see the end of his dream on the near horizon and has given over to illogical rhetoric. The frantic presentation of third hand rumors tells more than the polls. Also, I notice that even as close as the polls look when you look at a state by state basis Bush has Kerry by about 40 electoral votes. I don't remember the fellow name on Fox news the other night, but when he called Christians simple minded he may have awoken a sleeping giant. I think the liberals underestimate how many people consider themselves Christians. Have you noticed how separation of church and state champion Kerry is showing up in churches to talk. Noticed him today. Talk about a hypocrite.

Kansas had a little surprise as of late. They ran into a pastor with a little nerve. See below. I'll bet this will put a lot of liberal's thongs in a twist.

Thought you might enjoy this interesting prayer given in Kansas at the
opening session of their Senate. It seems prayer still upsets some people.

When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open the new session of the Kansas
Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is what they
heard:

"Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness
and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to
those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have
lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values.

We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word
and call it Pluralism.
We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
We have killed our unborn and called it choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our children and called it
building self esteem.
We have abused power and called it politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called
it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called
it enlightenment.

Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from
every sin and set us free.

Amen!"

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during
the prayer in protest..
In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively.
The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa and Korea.
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, "The
Rest of the Story," and received a larger response to this program than
any other he has ever aired.
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called
"one nation under God."


----------



## mr.trooper

Amen plainsman! We have remained Silent for Far to long! Time to rise up and make our voice heard! we all know what to do on election day.

And I to, though a meer Novice i may bee, have noticed the Increasing Rhetoric of Darth Tiger! i submit that this spontanious and rather fitting nick-name be branded. him and all the other Sith lords that lurk the forums. ( no offence or anything....)

I am tired of being Politicaly correct! NO MORE! :box: :splat: :rock:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You know Plainsman I still use logic in my debates. I am afraid that you have been so sucked in by all of this spin on tv that you can't see it anymore. I'm not quite sure how being a church-goer and supporting the seperation of church and state makes one a hypocrite. The writers of our great constitution did the exact same, and I don't see you calling Jefferson a hypocrite. You realize that his speech is just as damaging to your side as it is to mine, right Plainsman?


----------



## mr.trooper

Because the intention of seperation was to Keep theGovernment from taking over the Church NOT FOR KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE STATE.

THAT is how being a "Church goer" and suporting this rediculous UN CONSTITUTIONAL law is hypocritical. ( i say unconstitiutional becuase its not in the constitution, yet is is accepted as such, and activist judges have made it so.)


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You know trooper your arguement sounds an awful lot like those trying to oppress blacks in colonial America. They said that by "All men are created equal" it was implied that they only meant white men. If you are trying to tell me that "the separation of church and state" has to be defined otherwise to mean keeping one away from the other, then you are really grasping at straws.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

Very interesting that you mentioned Jefferson then tell mr trooper that he is grasping. It is also interesting you try turn this into something racial to find more support. Sorry that will not work. I think mr trooper and I would like to remain on subject and not be diverted by your attempt to brand people who do not agree with you racists. Nice try though. Some of the below is in my words, but the content is from a historical perspective website.

Anytime religion is mentioned today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote: 
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

You see MT Jefferson who you bring up was for protecting religion from government not the other way around. I simply disagree with the way separation of church and state is currently applied. There is the liberal view, and then there is the right, and I might add original, view as described by Jefferson. You see MT I have not been sucked in by spin. Not yours anyway.


----------



## mr.trooper

Thanks for backing me up yet again plainsman. :beer:

and as for you Militant Tigre....There is a key difference beteene the two examples you mentioned. and that is That i am not atemting to oppress annyone, but, infact would be liberating students who are no free to pray in public -unless a God-fearing principal is in charge, and stands up for what is right. in the long run it may even lift this veil of ignorance wich paints the religious as "uneducated" and "simple".

So you see, your arguments simply are NOT vallid, even down to the simpelest, most basic level. have a nice day uke:


----------



## sdeprie

Nice try, you guys. You know it won't fly. The spin has got us by the short hairs.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman by drawing a connection between two similar incidents, I do not mean to paint anyone as a racist, I do intend to paint you as an oppressor however. Everyone is free to pray in school, silent prayer. When you however force anyone to pray for your religon, that is indeed oppression. I'm quite sure that if you were forced to pray to Allah twice daily during school you would not be pleased.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I could give a rats behind if students pray or not. I simply want those who wish to do so to have that freedom, silent or otherwise. You are the oppressor MT. I want the freedom of students to do as they wish, you want to silence the Christians, and everyone else. If they want to pray to someone else it's a free country, or is it? You're the one that wants to *violate the first amendment *to force students to conform to your standards. Ie oppress. My intention isn't to force my wishes on anyone, my intention is to not let you force yours on everyone. You want to see who is the oppressor in this debate, look in a mirror.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman, if you let people do as they wish then you will have muslims taking a half hour twice a day during school to pray. That is unacceptable. Aloud violates the rights of all children, because it is either based on a single religon, or is non denominational, which gets nothing accomplished.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I realize it would make things difficult. I also don't think many would do it today. However, the first amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I would not want to pray in public, I would feel very uneasy in public. To me it is a private thing. My point is I dislike loosing the guaranteed freedoms of any portion of our constitution. Also, what bothers me today is that if your Christian many people believe you are simple minded. The facts are that government under the constitution must keep their nose out of it. I see government as becoming anti religious, and society is moving away from Christianity. I don't know if it is simply circumstantial (I doubt it) but at the same time America moves away from religion, the deeper into the gutter we crawl. Also MT denial of rights not the defense of rights is oppression.


----------



## mr.trooper

To Darth Tigre:

Why is that unacceptable? by your standards it shouldnt be. they sould be free to take as long as they want by our standards...yet you call us the oppressors? AND HOW IS ALOUD PRAYER FOURCING IT ON THEM? They dont have to pay attention, they dont have to recite it, and they DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IT.

What does it matter if they spend an hour praying durring school? most of our school systems dont teach them anything anyway.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman I don't think that this country should have been biased towards Christianity in the first place. A country which relies on one religon to make its decisions is bound to be at war with rival religons, like international gangs. I realize that there is a given right to prayer and free speech. On the other hand there is a right to bare arms, but if someone was to brandish a handgun on the street they would be arrested. I do not feel that school is the proper place for religon to be voiced. I believe that the intention of the constitution is to protect all religons behind closed doors.

Mr trooper I tend to agree with your evaluation of the school system, they sure didn't teach you much about no book learnin'


----------



## Plainsman

MT

The formers of our nation defined us as a Christian nation because as this nation was formed Christians were the only people here. Other than the Native American religions. Everyone who came here knew they were coming to a Christian nation. Still, our constitution protects them also.

Absolutely the school has no business supporting a single, or any religion. The danger then is how would they present it to our young people. The current problem is our schools and government are actively suppressing individual rights guaranteed by the constitution.

It can not be compared to firearms as you suggest. A student praying before lunch is not endangering the life of fellow students.

It isn't the schools or governments right to suppress or support a single, or all religions. They are by constitutional law to stay out of it. Where they violate it is when schools will not allow religious clubs after hours like other none religious activities. There are other samples also. What I want is equal treatment, and hands off.

I don't think our nation should rely on religion either to make our decisions. I however do not fault Bush for looking to his faith for direction. After all it indicates that he wanted to do what was right. I don't want religious people pushing their standards on anyone, but at the same time I think they have high standards, and their religious convictions demand their honest behavior. The danger is if religion can through government and or schools force their standards, which religion gets to do it? I don't want to take a chance on some goon squad teaching my grandchildren. Therefore I believe schools and government should not suppress or support, but rather stay out of religion.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I heartily agree, there is no trouble with someone praying at lunch, silent prayer. Unified prayer cannot be done in school and not exclude someone. America has no national religon, just because the founders were christian has no meaning. This was meant to be a free land where one could practice any religon they please, not governed by a large central religous power. I don't much buy Bush's talk about looking to religon for answers. Anyone readily willing to risk the life and limb of others does not seem very religous to me.


----------



## racer66

Do you believe in God MT?


----------



## sdeprie

I, on the other hand, am extremely leery of a president who ignores his supposed source of mores and take a stand against them to gain votes (Kerry: Catholic, in favor of abortions.)

For Kerry's voting record on firearms issues, see the new issue of American Rifleman. (F-) Completely endorsed by a number of anti-gun groups.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

To answer both questions, I am a Christian and I support (most forms of) abortion as well. I am not trying to gain any votes, or win any popularity contests. Though I am not fond of Kerry's voting record when it comes to firearms, I see Bush as a greater sleeze. He stated that he would sign the AWB even though it was obvious that it would never get to his desk. Underhanded technique to gain votes? You bet.


----------



## mr.trooper

"Mr trooper I tend to agree with your evaluation of the school system, they sure didn't teach you much about no book learnin'"---

Once again a democrat ignores the points of his opponents arguments, and slings an insult.

"I don't much buy Bush's talk about looking to religon for answers. Anyone readily willing to risk the life and limb of others does not seem very religous to me."--

Why is this hard for you to buy MT? Do you not think that God would willingly risk or destroy human life? as a "Christian" you should know that God Told the isrealites to destroy the people of the land of Canaan. There were Seven Nations living in palestine. Yet God told them to kill every man, woman, and Child. Yet you seem to think that pre-emptive war is wrong from a religious point of View? :eyeroll:

By the Way MT, what is your education? I actualy didnt go to a public schol. No, i went to a real school where teachers are there for more than collecting a paycheck, and they didnt just hand you an "A" because you were one of 2 people to do your homework for the week.

im curious..What kind of "Book Learning" do you think im lacking? Mathematics? I dont know...are Trancendental Functions simple to you? English? now i admit that i am a horrid typist, but i find colledge level english to be a yawn. 1/2 way through the semester and ther still trying to teach the public school kids what noun/verb/adjectives are. Chemistry? Tell me...how would you go about determining Avagadros number experimentaly? Where is this "Education" that im lacking? ifanyone is lacking, its you. and especialy in the area of common scence- or else you wouldnt have picked this fight.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

" but i find colledge level english to be a yawn"

yeah, me two :roll:


----------



## Matt Jones

mr.trooper said:


> Where is this "Education" that im lacking?


Well for starters it's in your spelling of words like isrealites, schol, colledge, experimentaly, and scence (just to name a few). You'd think that in a post where you brag about your education and intelligence you'd at least proof read it. :roll:


----------



## sdeprie

In case you guys haven't noticed, this argument has gone way south. Let's get back to the issue, Kerry's a sleazebag. (Sorry, lying sleazebag.)


----------



## mr.trooper

True He is a Sleaze bag. He is as sleazy as my Typing is bad that is the one concession I will always make!


----------



## racer66

So you do not believe in God, MT, hence you believe in abortion, hence you are not a christian, hence you want everything to be alright no matter what is said or done? :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Racer how is it that because I support a woman's right to choose, I am not a Christian. Just because you do not agree with one issue that Bush has brought up does not mean you are not a republican.


----------



## sdeprie

Let me answer that one. Because you support the woman's "right" to murder an innocent life, you are absolutely not following the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt not murder." That doesn't define you as Christian, or not, but that's the issue we're talking about, murdering a fetus. Now, you think I don't support the woman's right to choose. That is not true. However, the woman has ALREADY exercised her right to choose when she became pregnant in the first place. Please, don't hand me all those "special" circumstances about why it should be all right. We're not talking about those and you know it. We're talking about a woman's right to choose whether or not she should be pregnant.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You see, sde, telling a woman that she has already exercised her right to choose by getting pregnant in the first place is like telling someone trapped in a well that they cannot be saved because they shouldnt have been playing around by a well in the first place. You logic is poor. Also, its thou shalt not kill, hell even a "heathen" bastard like myself knows that one.


----------



## mr.trooper

I agree. Anyone who thinks Abortion is alright is fooling themselves if they think they are a "Christian". You can't be a Christian if you support ideas contrary to Christ's Teachings.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

I am old enough that the abortion issue; I really don't have a dog in that fight. The problem is I don't want to be involved with what I do think is wrong. The right to choose is simply feel good rhetoric to camouflage an otherwise distasteful practice, induced death. This is none of my business until the government taxes me, then takes that money to pay for an abortion for a person that doesn't realize that her choice occurred in the bedroom long before she came to the doctor to kill her kid. That makes me part of that childs death. Pro choice just isn't a realistic description of what is happening. What choice does the unborn have. If the mother's life is endangered, rape, incest, or some other circumstances were involved I would give it more thought. The problem with the liberals is you give them an inch and they want the whole enchilada. I can not believe that a civilized nation would ever have had partial birth abortion. When a child is partially born and the doctor stabs an instrument into the brain and scrambles it I think they should lock the mother and doctor up and throw away the key. Save your breath with the pro choice rhetoric.


----------



## mr.trooper

*even a "heathen" bastard like myself knows that one.
*

Exodus 20:13

"Thou shalt not kill" (King James Version)

"You shall not murder" (NASB, New American Standard Bible)

"You Shall not murder" (ESV, English Standard Version)

MT, Seing as your such a good Christian, i would have though that you would realize that there are different translations. I can pull out my Septuigent, and Stongs Greek/English/Hebrew lexicon. would that be satisfactory for you? give Sdep some slack...he Switched an l for a t....several versions say it that way anyhow.

BTW: I can describe SEVERAL of the Murderers techniques to you if you'd like. Few people who read them in detail continue to support this barbaric practice.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I am glad to see that you all follow the religon so closely. I hope that none of you have ever stolen, used the lords name in vain, or lied, as then you are no better than I. I believe it was Jesus himself who said "let he who is without sin throw the first rock." Unfortunately mr trooper started chucking stones before he could finish the sentence :roll:

Plainsman, with your logic EVERY child has the right to life, yet you make exceptions. Does a child from rape not have the same right to life? Did that child have the choice of how he was conceived? I think not. If you paint me as an extreme liberal, expect to be painted right back as an extreme conservative.


----------



## mr.trooper

No no MT, you threw the rock at Sdep first, insulting his knowledge of Scripture, I simply proved it to be valid.

no, plains never said he supported it, he just said in an extreem case he would consider his action more cautiosly. i am obviously of the opinion that ALL CHILDREN have the right to live.

P.S- you dont ave to paint ME as an extreem conservetive, ill admit it to your face.


----------



## pointer99

Militant_Tiger said:


> I am glad to see that you all follow the religon so closely. I hope that none of you have ever stolen, used the lords name in vain, or lied, as then you are no better than I. I believe it was Jesus himself who said "let he who is without sin throw the first rock."


militant -bin laden maybe you should take up the peaceful religion of islam. unfortunately they too have a little problem with abortion too but don't have a problem with lopping off heads.

jihad on mt

pointer


----------



## pointer99

mr.trooper said:


> P.S- you dont ave to paint ME as an extreem conservetive, ill admit it to your face.


me too i make reagan look like a liberal.

pointer


----------



## Plainsman

MT

Extreme depends on the angle which we look at ourselves and each other. Ask anyone, and I will bet they say they are moderate, or moderately liberal, or moderately conservative. I would bet you see yourself as moderately liberal. I see you as extreme. You think I am extreme, but I know people who make me look liberal. Therefore perhaps we are both moderate when we look at the true extremes. Calling each other extreme simply means we are failing to get our points across to each other, or the other will not accept our hypothesis. Good enough, I can live with that. You are right every child has the right to life. The only time I rethink my ideas is the case where retaining the child may endanger the mother in some way. Which life do you choose? I'm sure glad I don't have to make those decisions. You know what really bothers me. We have in the name of pro choice killed more defenseless people than good old Sadam. As far as throwing stones, the idea is none of us are worthy, but reality is none of us are throwing stones are we. Your confusing contemporary cliché (those in glass houses should not throw stones) with biblical teaching. Speech is not throwing stones. I must admit I don't like it when someone points out that I am doing something wrong, but as I have grown older I try to improve. Don't always succeed though, but keep trying.


----------



## sdeprie

Militant_Tiger said:


> You see, sde, telling a woman that she has already exercised her right to choose by getting pregnant in the first place is like telling someone trapped in a well that they cannot be saved because they shouldnt have been playing around by a well in the first place. You logic is poor. Also, its thou shalt not kill, hell even a "heathen" bastard like myself knows that one.


Apples and watermelons, MT. They are not the same, and one involves saving someone's life, the other involves taking someone's life. And it IS "Thou shalt not murder." In the original Hebrew kill and murder are different and it was "murder", not "kill". King James interpreted it as "kill" incorrectly. Ask your minister. He will verify this. A woman should take responsibility for her decisions, even when that decision was to do nothing.


----------



## sdeprie

Militant_Tiger said:


> You see, sde, telling a woman that she has already exercised her right to choose by getting pregnant in the first place is like telling someone trapped in a well that they cannot be saved because they shouldnt have been playing around by a well in the first place. You logic is poor. Also, its thou shalt not kill, hell even a "heathen" bastard like myself knows that one.


Apples and watermelons, MT. They are not the same, and one involves saving someone's life, the other involves taking someone's life. And it IS "Thou shalt not murder." In the original Hebrew kill and murder are different and it was "murder", not "kill". King James interpreted it as "kill" incorrectly. Ask your minister. He will verify this. A woman should take responsibility for her decisions, even when that decision was to do nothing. Please don't insult me by saying my logic is poor. My logic is perfect, even if it does clash with what you want to believe. Your logic, on the other hand, has never been very substantial and usually without backup.


----------



## sdeprie

Plainsman, eloquent as always. Wasted effort, but eloquent.


----------



## racer66

MT, do you believe in God?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Indeed a plague upon my house for having ideas that don't agree with yours. Who needs freedom when you can be right?

Racer, I've already answered that question. My mind still hasn't changed.


----------



## SniperPride

Militant_Tiger said:


> I've already answered that question. My mind still hasn't changed.


Straight from Kerrys mouth... :lol:


----------



## mr.trooper

"I must admit I don't like it when someone points out that I am doing something wrong, but as I have grown older I try to improve. Don't always succeed though, but keep trying."

THAT, Plainsman is what being a good Christian is all about. Admitting our mistakes and inadequacies, learning our lessons from them, and in turn becoming more like Christ!

I don't think "Do you believe in God?" is even worth asking. So what if they do? Satan and his daemons believe in God too, but that doesn't make them any more righteous.

I'm Sure John-John Genuinely believes in God too. But that doesn't stop him from supporting everything that God Hates.

Keep on Truck'n in the Free world sdeprie! That's the way to do it! When people scoff at your scriptural claims, pull out your English/Hebrew Lexicon and go strait to the original Hebrew Pentateuch!

P.S- "I am glad to see that you all follow the religion so closely."(MT) Tigre, Religion is something to be lived, not something that you merely "follow closely". I Follow Baseball Closely, but im not actualy a player. If that's what you do, then you've just been playing church, and it's time to get serious.


----------



## zogman

Sorry boys I forgot something on a previous but similar thread.
I was born at a place called childerns village in January 1947 to a 17 year old unwed mother. I was adopted at the age of 4 months to an older couple (40). Most wonderful parents anyone could of wished for. Am I ever glad I wasn't killed in the womb..........................


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I'm Sure John-John Genuinely believes in God too. But that doesn't stop him from supporting everything that God Hates. "

It's nice to have someone so qualified as yourself to interpret God's exact messages for me.

P.S.- As for playing the roll of church, I rarely attend, but none the less religon plays the largest part in my life.


----------



## zogman

MT wrote:



> religon plays the largest part in my life.


Then why are you so angry with most of us so much of the time??????

Love you man,


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Well Zog, though we all seem to share religon as the biggest influence in our lives, I think the areas that we were raised in, different factions of Christianity, and parental influence causes us to argue on a lot of the issues brought up in here. I know that we all argue in what we think is the best interest of everyone, and for that I respect all of you.


----------



## racer66

MT, religion obviously doesn't play a large part in your life or you would attend church on a regular basis.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Oh racer, will you ever learn :lol:


----------



## racer66

How can it play a large role if you are never there?


----------



## sdeprie

OMG, I'm going to defend MT. I very seldom get to church. Of course there are several reasons for this. First, as a nurse I work far more weekends than I have off. Second, my wife also works most weekends. When we do have a weekend off together, our time together is extremely valuable. Third, the nearest congregation of my church to attend is an hour's drive away, one way. I believe there are excuses for not attending church. However, I find little excuse for ignoring the teachings we profess to believe in, like the dignity of life, and many more. I will also say that while I have found very little from MT to agree with, I am impressed with his change in attitude from earlier writings. MT, we may disagree, perhaps terminally, but may we always respect each other and our right to disagree.


----------



## Southwest Fisher

MT is right on that, no man has a right to tell another one what that person believes in. MT's decision's are between him and his Creator, and no one else's damn business. I don't decry another person's faith when they tell me that they are Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty, no matter how hypocritical that is, cause that is for them to figure out and live with.

It was mentioned ealier in this topic about seperation of Church and State. It can only work both ways, the government cannot tell any one faith what to preach, and no one faith can tell the government what's right. If they want to so badly, lets se them give up their tax exemption first. Doubt that will happen.


----------



## mr.trooper

"lets se them give up their tax exemption first. Doubt that will happen."
--Why do Democrats all assume that republicans are a bunch of wealthy Fat-Cats who live for tax breaks?

"It's nice to have someone so qualified as yourself to interpret God's exact messages for me."
--I don't have to. It's spelled out for us in black and white. And sometimes in red.

"I know that we all argue in what we think is the best interest of everyone, and for that I respect all of you."
--Wow, MT&#8230;I never knew you felt that way about me. 

I'm not going to fault you for not going to church every time the doors are open. It's hard to get there with our full Schedules. My only quibble with you MT is that I cant see how you reconcile your Religious beliefs with your Political ones.


----------



## DJRooster

You can see some of the the biggest hypocrits you will find in all walks of life including the front row of church.


----------



## mr.trooper

Sadly Rooster, that is all too true. Those people pretend to be the perfect little Christian in church and then go home and live completely differently...its a sad state of affairs.


----------



## mr.trooper

OOPS! double post!


----------



## racer66

MT, I will apologize if I tried to force my religous beliefs upon you, in know way did I want to do that, for me it is a major role to attend church on a regular basis to keep a consistant and straight line, lack of attendance for me just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Apology accepted racer. It is good to remember that faith does not lie in a building, or in a book, faith lies within the soul.


----------



## Plainsman

Hey MT

Don't go dynamite the Mackinaw bridge. I have to use it to get to Goshen, Indiana to pick up my new trailer Monday. Taking the scenic route. I may have to spend some time near Goshen. They damaged the side door and hope to have a new one in Monday morning. They say I can be on the road by noon. I sure hope so. My wife would like to go to some of the Amish colonies so I guess we can spend some time there. Well, not to much more time to argue. I'll try pass along some conservative view points in Michigan restaurants.


----------



## mr.trooper

"Apology accepted racer. It is good to remember that faith does not lie in a building, or in a book, faith lies within the soul."
--Surprisingly well said Tigre.

Plainsman-you're going to Goshen Indiana tomorrow? That's a regular 10 minuet drive from my house. It's a Shame that I won't be home. The Amish Farms are nice to visit. Head on over to "Amish Acres" if you can they have a round-barn theatre that I hear is pretty good. Contrary to popular belief, they don't sell quilts at discount price.


----------



## Plainsman

Mr trooper

Well, I am starting out tomorrow, but the rout I am taking is about 1300 miles. I am going to try make it to Royal Cargo by noon Monday. It would be fun to meet for coffee somewhere. I'll PM you my cell number.


----------

