BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169637 Aug 29, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
How many times have I had to answer your questions but every time I do, you alter the question. Your original question was proof that Russia, Germany, etc. concurred that Bush that Iraq had WMD. And here is that answer..... AGAIN!!!! And please note, this comes from a LEFTY site too!!!
In fact, however, George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.” In this assessment, Tenet had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment. Even Hans Blix—who headed the UN team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he dispose of the WMD he was known to have had in the past—lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
"The discovery of a number of ... chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.... They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery … points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."
The consensus on which President Bush relied was first fully formed in the Clinton administration, as these statements indicate:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCat ...
<quoted text><quoted text>
There you go lying again. I have never said that Russia or Germany approved of the 1992 Iraq War. I DID say that they concurred that Saddamn Hussein did have WMD yet every time I show you proof, you change your question.
And the UN did NOT say that and you can not prove it. What they did say is they had not found an active WMD program or stock piles of chemical weapons.
The UN also said that Saddamn VIOLATED 27 UN mandates and was not cooperating with the inspectors.
Yes, the UN did approve of the invasion of 1992 and the 2002 re-invasion was a just a continuation of that war. There were 30 other countries who joined us the second time and our Congress approved it.
Do you have any idea how many battles there were in WWII? But it was still ONE war!
It is sad you will never accept the facts. But you will suck down anything Obama says as the Gospel truth.
Mr Liars : "they concurred that Saddamn Hussein did have WMD yet every time I show you proof". They did not concur. NOT. You never showed proof that they did, as Germany said unequivocally that it needed more proof of WNDs, while Russia said, Putin said it with Blair present in Moscow, that he did not believe there were WNDs. The UN was very clear on that : No WMDs.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169638 Aug 29, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, that was a properly executed CLOWNSTOMP!
It was? He missed. Stomped his own head. Your pillow buddy mentions Clinton's penis every fortnight, Lewinski as often, and gays all the time. And on each occasion, he just blurts it out, no one's been talking about that subject, it just HAS to obsessively come out. Not clownstomping, no, but clown being stomped, and feel free to share the compliment.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169639 Aug 29, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever tried to enter through a one-way EXIT? Doesn't work, does it?
Your mouth? Ewwww, I prefer keeping it in my pants.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#169640 Aug 29, 2013
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible was assembled by believers who prayed for guidance and decided collectively what was accepted and what were rejected.
Believers? Believing is not evidence. Believers believed in Jim Jones.

Got a clue what evidence is?

The notion that "BELIEVERS'" beliefs means something because they are "believers" is : CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
There is zero power in any of them... the whole shabang.
Do you know how the Gospels made it into the bible?
It had nada to do with inspiration or divinity.
They were chosen by a political council in Nicea for political reasons. Most notably The book of Thomas. It's validity was bulletproof it just didn't jive with the objectives of the church.
One of the biggest reasons books were stricken was that they conveyed the idea that you did not need the church, that there was a spark of the divine in all of us. This would get a book clipped faster than you could say Amen.
The story of Lilith,(Adam's first wife) was taken out for obvious reasons. I am sure someone who studies the bible as much as yourself knows all about Lilith.
To accomplish this the book of Genisis had to be reworked.
Eve was actually the second companion. Molded from Adam's body so she would suit him better. Lilith was created simultaniously with Adam, but they had a falling out. She saw herself as equal to Adam and did not yield to his commands. She left Eden and was chased down by three angels... I am sure you know the rest.
Hell, even what is contained in the all important dead sea scrolls was all but wiped from the bible.
What was good for the CHURCH was deemed inspired by God. The rest was bound to the Apocrypha to be hidden away.
You are a bit too intelligent not to recognize political manipulation when you see it.
But I am sure you will reason this away somehow. I am sure God told the council what was what... right?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169641 Aug 29, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Others disagree with you psycho.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-qae...
What a fool. Obvious you only read the juicy headline, your weak attention span not being able to go any further. You incriminate yourself. Read it all. It speaks of misrepresentation, of doubts by the British secret service, it speaks of Blair admitting there were no WMDs, read it, and of not properly evaluating the dire consequences of invading Iraq. Like Rogue often does, you presented a link that proves the opposite of what you ignorantly believe. Poor loser. Read your own link and weep. Here :

The Magazine

Al Qaeda in Iraq

What Tony Blair knows (and Barack Obama doesn’t).

Sep 27, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 02 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN

In a campaign speech on July 14, 2007, Senator Barack Obama railed against the Iraq war and President Bush’s obstinate refusal to end it.“We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield,” Obama said. In another speech a few weeks later, he said,“The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq—which didn’t exist before our invasion—and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.”

Al Qaeda in Iraq

Obama’s argument was by no means unique. It was fashionable at the time to claim that Iraq was in the midst of a “civil war” and, therefore, a surge of American troops (which Obama opposed) would unnecessarily place American lives at risk. Obama’s major rivals in the 2008 presidential campaign, including Senator Hillary Clinton, made similar arguments.

The claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion” was not Obama’s alone, either. Through two presidential elections (2004 and 2008) and countless debates about the war, the Democrats and their surrogates have made this allegation repeatedly. It is flat wrong.

The latest account to contradict the Democrats’ talking points is that of former British prime minister Tony Blair. In his new autobiography, A Journey: My Political Life, Blair is unapologetic about the decision to topple Saddam’s regime. But he is understandably disturbed by the violence that followed.

“I can’t regret the decision to go to war for the reason I will give,” Blair writes.“I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded, and that too is part of the responsibility.” The “nightmare” is the Iraqi insurgency, which Blair rightly blames on al Qaeda (and Iran).


To be sure, Blair does not contend that Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda made regime change necessary.“[T]he assessment of the threat was not based on Saddam’s active sponsorship of terrorism or terrorist groups,” he writes. As Blair sees it, Saddam’s Iraq was not “the same threat as Afghanistan” because there was no direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. In addition, British intelligence officials thought the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was “hazy

Naysayers will undoubtedly seize upon these passages as further proof that Saddam’s Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. But contrary to Obama and the Democrats, Blair also says “there was strong intelligence that al Qaeda were allowed into Iraq by Saddam in mid-2002 (with severe consequences later).”

Blair elaborates:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab]al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden,had come to Iraq in May 2002,had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.

Blair’s testimony directly contradicts the Democrats.Still, in the British manner, he continues to understate the case.

...2

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169642 Aug 29, 2013
2...

Intelligence compiled by American officials, as well as the testimony of known al Qaeda associates, confirms that al Qaeda established a significant presence in Iraq prior to March 2003. The evidence that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war is simply overwhelming. And it helps to explain why the insurgency became so lethal.

Even though Blair says it “later emerged” that Zarqawi had set up shop in Iraq in 2002, this connection was actually a formal part of the American case for war. Secretary of State Colin Powell included a section on Zarqawi’s network in Iraq in his February 5, 2003, presentation before the United Nations.

Former CIA director George Tenet reveals in his own autobiography, At the Center of the Storm, some of the intelligence that backed up Powell’s presentation. More than one dozen other al Qaeda terrorists had joined Zarqawi in Baghdad. One of them was an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al Masri, who had served Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, since the 1980s. After Zarqawi was killed in 2006, al Masri took his place as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Masri himself was killed earlier this year, and his widow confirmed that they had moved to central Baghdad in 2002.

Zarqawi and al Masri led a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks against the Iraqi people, security personnel, and coalition forces. It was their savagery that, to a large extent, brought Iraq to the brink of total chaos—and ultimately provoked the Anbar Awakening. It is crucially important, then, that Zarqawi and al Masri were operating inside Iraq before American or British forces ever set foot there. They were clearly preparing for war.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169644 Aug 29, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop it,Rogue. There were no WMD, no Al Qaeda, no Taliban, no Iranians in Iraq during the Saddam era. None of the foregoing;
Hilary Clinton, and dems, and Repubs, no one had anything good to say about Saddam pre-2003. NO ONE. Does that mean they wanted to invade Iraq. Who now in the US had anything good to say about Putin? Yes, who wants to invade Russia?
Russia, Germany,the UN,France, never agreed that there were WMDs. Never. Drop it now before you look even sillier, if that is at all possible. And get some real sources, let go of wnd.com , Foxnews.com , theblaze.com , canadafreepress.com , globe.com , nationalenquirer.com <quoted text>
Have you notices how he changes the subject. He starts by saying that Russia, Germany, etc. did not agree that Saddamn has WMD and then when you show him proof positive he says they did not find any which, I think, just about everyone agrees to include me. But in 2001 EVERYONE agreed that he did have WMD!!! EVERYONE!!!
Oh, so Jacqueau can not read two PARAGRAPHS, how about just two SENTENCES???
In fact, however, George Tenet, George W. Bush's CIA director, assured the President that the case for Saddam possessing WMD was “a slam dunk.”
....
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France all agreed with this judgment.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCat...
Bush did NOT lie because what he said was what he believed. Get over it Whackeau Jacqueau!!!
Do you even know what the word "imminent" meant? And Tenet said that Germany, Russia, France agreed there were WMDs. Tenet speaking on behalf of these Europeans? Who cares if Clinton appointed Tenet? Tenet was in left field. You can't show me anything where it says that Russia, Germany, France confirmed WMDs. But I showed that they never did. No Al Qaeda either, in spite of on of its emissaries coming to Bagdad to talk with Saddam, so says super sleuth Tenet. ONE Al Qaeda emissary , another in hospital, that makes for an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq? Keep grabbing at straws, Rogue, but still, best to stick with helicopters and bush planes.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169645 Aug 29, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I don't know why he defends people who would kill gay people on sight. Why does he think there are no gays in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and just about every other Muslim country. Why in one country, which has a Christian majority, the Muslim majority province imprisoned who guys just because they looked gay!
Gays don't bother me. I will let God judge them and that is probably why Jacqueau became an atheist.
Rogue : "And I don't know why he defends people who would kill gay people on sight". Hey, Mr Liars, show me where I defended those people. I don't defend killers. It's what YOU do.
Democracynow org

Sayville, NY

#169646 Aug 29, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The overwhelming evidence supports that mankind:
1) had a founder population of thousands, probably about 10,000
2) evolved from an ancestor common to the chimpanzee.
The overwhelming evidence does not support the Adam & Eve fable. An overwhelming wealth of evidence is found right in your DNA in every living cell of your body.
If rational conclusions based on reason, logic, and hard evidence are not more reliable than beliefs systems based on circular reasoning, then you are correct.
The **evidence** is contrary to the Adam & Eve theory and the original sin teaching which was crafted to fit the creation story. I have stated much of the evidence here before.
Willful blindness is called DENIAL.
The belief that Adam lived a very long time, assumes the factual correctness of the Adam & Eve fable as a premise. That is a fine example of circular reasoning, which is FALLACIOUS.
Now when has fallacious reasoning ever been considered as a valid basis for believing anything?
<quoted text>
Denial river is in Egypt. lol

As time goes by more and more truth comes out that the Biblical stories are much closer to the truth than not.

I'm glad you brought up DNA.

Take a look at this article.

Genetic study offers clues to history of North Africa's Jews
Aug 7, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/8sejyay
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-s...

The Exodus Conspiracy - pt1 of 9



The Exodus Conspiracy - pt2 of 9 (Edit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

=====

King David's palace found, says Israeli team
July 21, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/ojxcadq
JERUSALEM (AP)— A team of Israeli archaeologists believes it has discovered the ruins of a palace belonging to the biblical King David, but other Israeli experts dispute the claim.
Archaeologists from Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Israel's Antiquities Authority said their find, a large fortified complex west of Jerusalem at a site called Khirbet Qeiyafa , is the first palace of the biblical king ever to be discovered.
"Khirbet Qeiyafa is the best example exposed to date of a fortified city from the time of King David," said Yossi Garfinkel, a Hebrew University archaeologist, suggesting that David himself would have used the site. Garfinkel led the seven-year dig with Saar Ganor of Israel's Antiquities Authority.
Garfinkel said his team found cultic objects typically used by Judeans, the subjects of King David, and saw no trace of pig remains. Pork is forbidden under Jewish dietary laws. Clues like these, he said, were "unequivocal evidence" that David and his descendants had ruled at the site.
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-king-david-palac...

Democracynow org

Sayville, NY

#169647 Aug 29, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 2:7
Genesis 2:21-25
Who wrote the above? It is rumoured that Moses may have. But no one knows for sure. So many questions, like, why believe something that is "perhaps" written by someone or worse, is anonymous - and who told the writer all of this? Was the writer alone when God divulged all of this to him? Any corroborating witnesses?
The fact that Eve was created from Adam's very flesh is the true beginning of woman's "inferiority" from that time on to this day. The writer of these tales just cannot admit that woman created man, that the God he created was incapable of making a human being without the participation of a woman and her womb. And hence the Bible's, both old and new testament's misogynous verses and psalms. Woman is in both books a minority, a "necessary evil" bearer of man's sperm and children . Almost nowhere in the scriptures is the mother allowed to make any decision concerning her own flesh and blood. Did Abraham consult Sarah before heading off with his son to immolate him? Did Aaron consult with his wife(ves) before putting their two sons to death for not being able to, believe this or not, light a proper fire? Is there a more woman-hating man than Paul? One only need read his comments on why women have to cover their head and men don't.
The Spirit of GOD wrote it through humankind.

You have it very wrong about Woman in Scriptures.

Judge Deborah, Queen Esther, and many great Woman

=======

Life Lessons from Women of the Bible

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/...

Woman in the Bible
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/ai...

=======

Genesis 15:18-21
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said,“To your descendants I give this land, from the river&#65279; of Egypt to the great river the Euphrates 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”

Joshua 1:4
4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates all the Hittite country to the Great Sea&#65279; That is, the Mediterranean on the west..

In regards to the land that God has promised Israel, Genesis 15:18 declares, "To your descendants [Abraham's] I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." God later confirms this promise to Abraham's son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob (whose name was later changed to Israel). When the Israelites were about to invade the Promised Land, God reiterated the land promise, as recorded in Joshua 1:4, "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates — all the Hittite country — to the Great Sea on the west."

With Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 in mind, the land God gave to Israel included everything from the Nile river in Egypt to Lebanon (North to South) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (West to East). So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#169648 Aug 29, 2013
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
You are DEAD WRONG on this.
-----
Bush and Cheney never blamed Bill Clinton for September 11, 2001.-----
Fool Me Once, Shame On You, Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me!
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Okay show us where either Bush-43 or Cheney blamed Bill Clinton FOR ANYTHING???
Either put out or shut the f-up you slimy troll!
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
Put your glasses on because I said they never blamed Clinton for 9/11/01, just like Clinton never blamed Reagan and Daddy Bush for Iran-Contra AND Obama never blamed Bush/Cheney for wiretapping, waterboarding, destroying Magna Carta, US Constitution, and a myriad of other abuses against the American citizenry.
=======
The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State
by Chris Hedges / http://tinyurl.com/ay2k26z / February 11, 2013
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/11-2...
Obama never blamed anything on Bush-43? How about the economy? He is still blaming Bush about the economy.
I thought Obama was smarter than Bush because if he was, he would have been able to fix Bush's mess-up in just one year.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#169649 Aug 29, 2013
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
As I understand it the out going Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration about al Qaeda and not Iraq.
There is something called a transition team and Bush was briefed about all kinds of things but what exactly was he briefed on about al Qaeda? About Iraq? You don't know and I do not pretend to know but that is the difference between Conservatives and Libtards. You always think you know everything when you don't know sh*t!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#169650 Aug 29, 2013
Well it has been two years since I got Little Wojo. He could fit in my 16 oz. coffee mug when I got him. I think he was born around the Forth of July.
Oh, Little Wojo turned out to to be 100% Chihuahua. I think he is half Gringo and boy does he have an attitude. When he was six months old I got him fixed and I had Neuticles installed to make him look some what normal. Actually I had medium-small ones (Jack Russel size) to make him look real macho.
Anyway I bought my girl friend some Neuticle earrings as agage gift.
http://www.neuticles.com/merchmart.php#earing...
They're the forth item down. She didn't like them so I gave them to a waitress at the Waffle House. She looks a little wild and she still wears them.
Maybe Terri Tunna would like some Neuticle earrings too.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#169651 Aug 29, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times has your counselor told you - your obsessions are your issues, not anyone else's
Let me guess, "you're rubber and I'm glue" is next, right? manchild
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#169652 Aug 29, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you read, yes or no? Blair clearly says there was no Saddam/Al Qaeda link. His intelligence agency said there was none. Blair says he never saw the unfortunate insurgency coming. Blair had his career ruined by Iraq. Herewith , your own link ;
Al Qaeda in Iraq
What Tony Blair knows (and Barack Obama doesn’t).
Sep 27, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 02 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN
Send to Kindle
Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller Text Alerts
reCAPTCHA challenge image
Get a new challengeGet an audio challengeGet a visual challengeHelp
In a campaign speech on July 14, 2007, Senator Barack Obama railed against the Iraq war and President Bush’s obstinate refusal to end it.“We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we’re on the wrong battlefield,” Obama said. In another speech a few weeks later, he said,“The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates Al Qaeda in Iraq—which didn’t exist before our invasion—and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan.”
Al Qaeda in Iraq
Obama’s argument was by no means unique. It was fashionable at the time to claim that Iraq was in the midst of a “civil war” and, therefore, a surge of American troops (which Obama opposed) would unnecessarily place American lives at risk. Obama’s major rivals in the 2008 presidential campaign, including Senator Hillary Clinton, made similar arguments.
The claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion” was not Obama’s alone, either. Through two presidential elections (2004 and 2008) and countless debates about the war, the Democrats and their surrogates have made this allegation repeatedly. It is flat wrong.
The latest account to contradict the Democrats’ talking points is that of former British prime minister Tony Blair. In his new autobiography, A Journey: My Political Life, Blair is unapologetic about the decision to topple Saddam’s regime. But he is understandably disturbed by the violence that followed.
“I can’t regret the decision to go to war for the reason I will give,” Blair writes.“I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded, and that too is part of the responsibility.” The “nightmare” is the Iraqi insurgency, which Blair rightly blames on al Qaeda (and Iran).
300x250
More by Thomas Joscelyn
Still Al Qaeda's Boss
Taliban Still Backs Al Qaeda
INTERPOL Alert Warns of Al Qaeda's Jailbreaks
'Core' Al Qaeda Closes U.S. Diplomatic Facilities
Hunger Games
To be sure, Blair does not contend that Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda made regime change necessary.“[T]he assessment of the threat was not based on Saddam’s active sponsorship of terrorism or terrorist groups,” he writes. As Blair sees it, Saddam’s Iraq was not “the same threat as Afghanistan” because there was no direct connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks. In addition, British intelligence officials thought the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was “hazy.”
Many more documents disagree with you. Get over it!
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#169655 Aug 29, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote : "They have no respect for anyone else's religion." Hey it's their religion too.
Did you read what I just sent LRS? Bush lied. It's all there. Idiot LRS incriminates himself by posting a link that repeats what every intelligent person, dem or repub, has been saying about the Iraq invasion lie. Benghazi? Yes, Obama and his boys and girls did not exactly do a very good job on post-Benghazi. Can't deny that. But what you fail to comprehend is that Obama did NOT attack the U.S. consulate whereas GWB attacked Iraq with no exit plan, and killing close to 200,000 people, 4500 of them GIs, 32,000 wounded U.S. military,$1.5 trillion, and you compare Benghazi to that? 4 died at Benghazi. That is a tragedy. But again, you compare that to 4500, 200,000, and 32,000 gravely wounded and $1.50 trillion? Are you okay?
The claim that Al Qaeda in Iraq “didn’t exist before our invasion” was not Obama’s alone, either. Through two presidential elections (2004 and 2008) and countless debates about the war, the Democrats and their surrogates have made this allegation repeatedly. It is flat wrong.(WS)

Your reading comprehension sux.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#169656 Aug 29, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
It was? He missed. Stomped his own head. Your pillow buddy mentions Clinton's penis every fortnight, Lewinski as often, and gays all the time. And on each occasion, he just blurts it out, no one's been talking about that subject, it just HAS to obsessively come out. Not clownstomping, no, but clown being stomped, and feel free to share the compliment.
Sorry Path, it was a perfectly executed CLOWNSTOMP. Get over it. Move on. Or are you not capable?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#169657 Aug 29, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mouth? Ewwww, I prefer keeping it in my pants.
Very moronic.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169659 Aug 29, 2013
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
The Spirit of GOD wrote it through humankind.
You have it very wrong about Woman in Scriptures.
Judge Deborah, Queen Esther, and many great Woman
=======
Life Lessons from Women of the Bible
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/...
Woman in the Bible
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/ai...
=======
Genesis 15:18-21
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said,“To your descendants I give this land, from the river&#65279; of Egypt to the great river the Euphrates 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
Joshua 1:4
4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates all the Hittite country to the Great Sea&#65279; That is, the Mediterranean on the west..
In regards to the land that God has promised Israel, Genesis 15:18 declares, "To your descendants [Abraham's] I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates." God later confirms this promise to Abraham's son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob (whose name was later changed to Israel). When the Israelites were about to invade the Promised Land, God reiterated the land promise, as recorded in Joshua 1:4, "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates — all the Hittite country — to the Great Sea on the west."
With Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 in mind, the land God gave to Israel included everything from the Nile river in Egypt to Lebanon (North to South) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (West to East). So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.
The Spirit of God wrote it to humankind? What Spirit? What human? There are no names. And God told the story to just anyone and we believe this?

As to women in the Bible, and I won't even try, there are 1,000 notable men for 1 woman. Even Jesus's mother, Mary. Pray tell, how many mentions does she get in the Holy Scriptures. Apart from giving birth to Jesus, virginally I may add, what exactly did she do? She appeared to Bernadette Soubirou in Lourdes and the children n Fatima. She predicted disasters all over which did not occur, never once asked that women be equal, that slaves be freed, but instead asked that we build churches in her name. So much for Mary.

And the promised land. When God promised it to Abraham , Israel,(Isaac), Moses, Joshua, did he even consult the Canaanites whose people were about to be slaughtered by Moses and Joshua on their way to the promised land? Massacres that would make Hitler envious? And what had these Canaanites done to the Hebrews? Er, nothing, except they were in the way, and had to be dealt with. God told the Hebrews that all of this land was theirs, and who's to argue with that? And oh, he just told someone, not sure who, hmmm, Abraham the coward, the slave lover, the son killer, Isaac, Moses, who? Bet the Canaanites didn't care while they were, with their animals and all, being slaughtered. Hey, God even stopped the sun so the massacre could go on. No one spared, Bible's very accurate, even children killed. Oh, spoils were place somewhere to be kept for God the father, lol lol, suuuure.

All the above from memory. Can someone tell me any of it is false?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#169660 Aug 29, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Many more documents disagree with you. Get over it!
Which ones? The link you incredulously confirms what I've been saying all along. You don't even try to wiggle out of it, now that you see how you incriminated yourself foolishly, attracted like a poor fly to a lightbulb by a headline that pleased your hateful gut.

What "more documents?" The one you submitted proves that Blair did not believe there were WMDs or not more than two Al Qaeda emissaries that Saddam ignored.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 25 min well 50,657
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Yeah 1,127,252
Amy 10-24 2 hr your poor wife 15
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr Wolverine33 654
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Ratloder 68,672
Rattlesnake Logic 6 hr i need a bump to 22
food for thought 6 hr reality is a crutch 2
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]