"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't
following them then it doesn't matter what name they use) those
rules a Love God completely and love your neighbor as you love
yourself.

How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.

Really,

Yep.

what other rules did he say there were?

Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.

IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them.

Guess which pathetic little rabid fundy has just got egg all over its
pathetic little face, as always ?

Even someone as stupid as you must have noticed the one about the eye of
the needle.

Then there's the one about throwing stones too.

They aint the only ones either.

You are funny.

You are pathetic.

You are pathetic.


Those are called parables and they are not rules.

Bull**** with that throwing stones line.

Which is related to the two rules, if you love your neighbor like you love
yourself you aren't going to stone them. Think of it this way; in football
you have a rule that covers all personal fouls not one rule against kicking
an opponent, another against late hits, another against giving weggies, etc.



Parables are told to show how you should live up to the only two rules
you are to follow.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Thank you for helping proving my point.

No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bull****.

You did it again.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

You examples proved that there are only two rules that Christians have to
follow.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Try reading the Bible yourself.

Been there, done that,

And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out.

Just did.

You tried. And failed. Want to try again?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Because they ain't in there.

Fraid so.

Prove it.

Just did.

And I unproved your proof. So try again.


Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Only in response to someone who does it.

Bare faced lie, obvious from your posts to others today alone.

Again you need to show proof, I may restate a point because I think someone
didn't get it the first time but I don't keep using the same phrase over and
over and over. That and insulting people instead of trying to support your
position is a sign of a small mind.



One last thing, Christ told us we are to spread the Word but if
the people don't want to
hear or believe then we are to knock the dust off our feet and
never visit them again. Its
up to them at that point.

Or that either.

Nearly a direct quote from the 'Christian manual'.

Bare faced lie. That fool said a hell of a lot more than that on
that matter.

Again you are showing your ignorance.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

IOW, you are wrong but aren't man enough to admit it.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

You are repeating yourself again AND showing your ignorance.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

We, Christians, are told to spread the word but if the people who
hear the word turn a deaf ear
we are to leave them.

Pig ignorant lie. Have fun explaining what that fool did with the
money changers.

What in the world does the money changers in the temple have to do with
spreading his msg?

He clearly didnt just leave them when they turned a deaf ear.

A few things. 1) If you knew about the story you'd know he didn't
even tell them the msg. He just tossed them out of the temple.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


2) they were in a temple not a house,

That line about leaving them doesnt just apply to
houses, you pathetic excuse for a rabid bull**** artist.

I noticed you ignored my other points therefore I will ignore this one of
yours (mainly because I put that one in just to see if you are reading my
post or just insulting people)


3) they were claiming to be believers, different set of rules for dealing
with them.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

reams of your rabid mouth frothing frenzy that any 2
year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

I know it won't do any good because you have shown yourself to be a
closed minded bigot

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

More repeating

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Only in response to someone who does it.

Bare faced lie, obvious from your posts to others today alone.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


and proving my statements.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Can't you even come up with a new phrase every now and again?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


but read Matthew chapter 10 verses 11-14.

Irrelevant to the other stuff that fool DID that is nothing like that.

Now you can't even form coherent thoughts. Please explain what that is
supposed to mean?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

I don't see how your first statement equals your second but if that is
what you say so.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


FYI, a religion does not need to believe in an all powerful god.

Many of them 'worship' a man or idea.

That aint a religion, fool.

You are the fool if you can believe that.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Which translates to, can't support my side of the debate must run away,
run away.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

see above.

See above.

see above.


What's the difference in praying to a tree or some man claiming
to be a profit or saying he has the way to perfection?

An idea aint a religion, fool.

Just another word for the same thing.

We have different words for a reason, fool.

If you had an education you'd know that different words can mean the same
thing.

Pity they dont in this case, fool.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.



Do you believe in the big bang?

I accept that the evidence shows that quite a bit of stuff didnt happen
anything like its claimed in that pathetic collection of fairy storys.

IOW, you have faith that there was something created from nothing.

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


You just don't want to believe that something bigger than yourself might
be out there.

I know that quite a bit of stuff didnt happen anything like its claimed in
that
pathetic collection of fairy storys. And when there are countless other
collections of fairy storys from countless other stupid fundys in
countless
other 'religions', I have decided that its a tad unlikely that your
particularly
collection of fairy storys is the one true pathetic collection of fairy
storys.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Its MUCH more likely that what we actually see is an endless
variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds' instead.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Remember the nuts who thought the space ship was following the comet?
Are you saying they were not a religion?

Irrelevant to whether an idea is a religion, fool.

Watch him run away. You'd think my arguments were killer white rabbits.
Did you soil your armor as well?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Oh, go change your armor.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.



Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.




Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.



Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to
say.

IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must
be followed.

It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic subset
of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible.

So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of
hot air on his rulings on
homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his post in the
church?

Nope, so anyone is welcome to discuss whether a particular
ruling makes sense, and sometimes even a later Pope decides
that the shafting of Galileo made absolutely no sense, even tho
he didnt mention Bruno, presumably because he went up in flames.

And anyone with a clue just kept their mouths shut on the question
of whether the sun revolved around the earth, whatever some damned
pope or other ruled, until even that pathetic collection of utterly
corrupt clowns managed to get the basics right on that eventually.

Sorry don't think so.

'think' again.

Why you just said that I was correct?

No I didnt.

I first thought you were just a closed minded, bigoted jerk but now I'm
starting to think you actually have a mental problem.


Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings
change over time.

Not really,

Corse it is.

Not the basic rules.

Fraid so. Married priests is an absolutely classic example of that.

According to the Catholics I know 'the church' has allowed married
priests. It usually was only permitted in cases where the priest was
living in 'hardship', i.e. a mission to a 'backwards' country.

Completely wrong. Most obviously with the married priests that come from
other protestant sects like the anglicans in modern first world countrys.

Try asking a Catholic if the church allows or used to allow priest in remote
areas of South America and Africa to marry. I think you will find out you
are the one who is wrong. Of course you'll never admit it. Closed minded
bigots such as yourself will never admit a mistake.



Now those who choose leave a protestant cult and join the roman
catholic cult don't even have to ditch the wife and kids anymore.

Bet eventually they'll have to allow priests to marry, just because the
entire organisation will eventually implode if they don't.

If it is willing to toss out one of its basic beliefs

Thats nothing like one of its most basic beliefs,
its a relatively recent thing in church history.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


lends more support to my point that the RC church is more about money,
power and politics.

Its actually about something MUCH more basic, survival.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


In spades with what women are allowed to do in that cult.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


But my point is even if the rules do change what does it matter if you
ain't following them go begin with?

Plenty do make some attempt to follow the more sensible ones.

And basically make an obscene gesture in the general direction of Rome
on the most stupid rules like not using any contraception etc.

IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not be Catholic.

Wrong again. They just realise that things do change over time
even in that particular cult and that it makes a lot more sense
to decide stuff for yourself like birth control and not give a damn
about what one senile old fool in Rome has to say about it.

So if they decided that they don't need to say the prayers, baptize their
children, get married 'in the church' then they are still Catholic? Why not
just say that they could go out and do human sacrifices because that's what
they think makes more sense? After all as long as they say they are
Catholics it doesn't mater what their actions are. Even though you have
stated that people are known by their actions.




The roman catholic church has ALWAYS had
a hell of a lot of that sort of thing going on.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Its rarely been as rabidly hard line as the worst of the rabid protestant
cults.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Which might just be why its lasted a hell of a lot longer than they have.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

There's always been a lot more than one size fits all on stuff like that.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Specially on the trivial crap like whether the mass is in the local
language or latin etc.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Just because I eat pork or beef every meal does that mean I'm not a
vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT
DOES. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian."
if I don't follow the rules
and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am.

Its nothing like that black and white with eating fish on fridays etc.

I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob
banks for a living am I a Christian? Nope.

But you are still a catholic if you dont always eat fish on fridays.

Therefore you saying that Christians screw around on their wife's and
rob banks is foolish.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

It isn't a straw man.

Corse it is.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


The RC church has rules for its members.

And plenty of them arent anything like as black and white
as your straw man and you dont get booted out of the cult
if you dare to eat other than fish on some fridays etc.

Only because the church needs them and their money.


The RC cult has never been as rabidly fantatical as the worst of the rabid
protestand cults.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (and this applies
here because of some of the things the RC church has done in the name of God
its history.)


Which is why it has survived for so long and so many of the worst
of the rabid protestant cults are lucky to even last a generation.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


If you don't follow the rules how can you call yourself a Catholic?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you dont have clue about what that cult is about.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own
rules.

And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ?

Seems they don't care as long as they keep
getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics.

It aint primarily about money.

Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of
the church?

Even the stupidest in rome have noticed that that sort of gung ho
approach
doesnt work and just produces stuff like protestantism and Lutherans
etc.

They've noticed that even burning them at the stake doesnt work either.

IOW, the church is afraid that if they enforce the rules then people will
leave the church and take their money with them.

Nope, they've managed to work out what allows a cult like
that to be viable over the long haul and even you should
have noticed that they havent done too badly in that regard.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

I bet those with a clue regret treating Luther like they did and
that it would have been a lot more viable to not have encouraged
so many to break away and produce protestantism etc.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


It aint about money, its about surviving.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Which is why they wont maintain the ban on married priests forever,
because they wont be able to find enough priests if they do.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Its not as if its some ruling some damned god or other imposed anyway.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and had
abortions to be married "in the church".

For the same reason they allow priests who **** children to remain in
the church. Basically utterly misguided ideas about it being possible to
get them to stop doing that when it isnt another example of one of those
having managed to make it to bishop or cardinal without being caught
etc.

Not quite. In that case they didn't want the bad press which would have
cut into their money making.

Its got nothing to do with money making. Plenty of societys
just laugh about what the priests are notorious for getting
up to unless its the most obscene stuff like ****ing children.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


There's always been a high level of scepticism about some
of the sillier stuff priests pontificate about, like raving on about
the sin of wearing mirror sunglasses, wearing highly polished
shoes so you can look up women's dresses, etc etc etc.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

And now the mindlessly silly stuff about contraception etc.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages
with 5 kids to be annulled so someone can get married 'in the church'
but not allowing divorce.

Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.

Hockey Pucks!

You're actually stupid enough to 'think' that using silly
words like that will stop you going up in flames ?

In this day and age using words like that have more effect. You noticed
didn't you?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

If it ain't about the money then what is it about?

They have this rather naive idea that even those can change their ways

You are the one that is naive if you think that is their reason.

That is a VERY fundamental part of what that pathetic cult
is about, confessing your sins and promising not to do it again.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages
with 5 kids to be annulled so someone can get married 'in the church'
but not allowing divorce.

Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.

Thats just the usual mindless copout when one 'rule' conflicts with
another.

Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, most obviously with
the execution of abortionists.

Give me plenty of examples then.

Most obviously with how individuals who 'lapse' and **** a consenting
adult outside marraige are hardly ever booted out of the cult as long
as they admit that what they did was wrong and promise to never do it
again.

Doesn't fit.

Corse it does.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


You implied that protestants supported "the execution of abortionists",

No I didnt. I just said that SOME do stupid stuff like that one rule
conflicting with another stupidity.

I don't know any that support adultery.

Never said they did, I JUST said that that doesnt get you booted out of
the cult much
as long as you claim to have seen the error of your ways and promise to
not do it again.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Virtually all of the protestant cults allow remarraige after divorce
now, even tho it took the episcopalians quite some time to cave in on
that.

True, but that proves my point somewhat.

No it doesnt.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

If a 'christian church' isn't following the rules laid out by Christ is
it really a Christian church?

Its never that black and white on what that fool who got nailed up by the
romans allowed.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Eventually even the roman catholics will wake up and smell the coffee
and decide that they've wasted enough time on stupid fudges on that
stuff.

The weak one

It aint weak at all.

you gave fails on three reasons.

No it doesnt.

1) you can't show me one church that calls for that;

The whole point of many of the protestant cults is that there aint no
church hierarchy that sets the rules. You're sposed to use that pathetic
collection of fairy storys and work out for yourself what that arsehole
of a god wants you to do instead.

Still no example of a church that calls for "the execution of
abortionists".

Never ever said that even one ever did.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (oops that one doesn't
fit that well)

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. (there that one
works better)


You do that yourself on something like giving up on non christians when
you have presented your claims about what some god or other wants us to
do, and they choose to ignore that, when you wave around some bit of
that pathetic collection of fairy storys and don't just show what some
church bigwig has claimed is the rule to follow.

Huh? I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say.

I'm succeeding in saying that most protestant cults are about
working out for yourself what that arsehole of a god wants you
to do from that pathetic collection of fairy storys, and most dont
even have any church hierarchy that sets the rules for you to follow.

Better do a little more research. I don't know of any church that doesn't
have a 'convent' or other written rules for its members.


But, if you check most all churches have written rules you are to follow
if you are to be a member of that church.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never had a clue about what protestantism is about.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


These rules are set by some 'bigwigs'.

Quite a few protestant cults dont even HAVE any bigwigs at all.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag. (dang, forgot to
change that)

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland. (there)


In good churches you will find the rules follow the strict teachings of
Christ.

No such animal.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

2) check out what I have been telling you, just because someone calls
himself a Christian doesn't mean he is;

True of you and your ilk in spades.

That statement makes NO sense.

Corse it does. Your proclaimation that there are just
two rules is and absolutely classic example of that.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland

That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans
never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Its just some hare brained idea someone has
fed you and you have been stupid enough to buy it.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


Just like the crap about married priests, contraception, fish on
fridays, 'the body and the blood of christ', graven idols, etc etc etc.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


3) abortionist are not being killed day in and day out.

The frequency is completely irrelevant.

There werent all that many examples of people like Bruno being burnt at
the stake because they insisted that the earth revolves around the sun
either, essentially because those with a clue chose to keep their mouths
shut after Bruno had gone up in flames.

Again you are talking of the RC church.

There's **** all difference on that crap.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


If you look back you will see that this thread started out with me saying
there are a lot of places where the RC church does not follow the
teachings of Christ and therefore can't really be called a Christian
church.

They say the same thing about fools like you.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

And they're right on that stupid just 2 rules line of yours too.

Show me any 'rule' you find that can not be directly linked back to the two
I mentioned. You won't because you can't.

So you are again trying to blame Christians for things they didn't do.

Not blaming anyone for anything. Just rubbing your stupid nose
in the FACT that ALL of your stupid fools that claim to be 'christian',
ALL ignore the bits that that fool who was stupid enough to get
nailed up by the romans said when it suits you.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


You personally ignore everything he said and did except for those 2 rules
you wave around.

Just pointed out that everything in a Christian's live is based on 2 rules
and 2 rules alone.


You're no 'christian', you're just another rabid fantatic that hasnt got a
clue and who does plenty of stuff that that fool that was stupid enough
to get nailed up by the romans said would see you consigned to hell.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


You missed 60's and love, love, love.

Still a lot of hate there.

Just another of your silly little fantasys.

Really?

Yep.

Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's?

Not by those spewing that love ****.

So you admit that there were lynchings in the 60's

Corse I do.

and there was still a lot of hate.

A tiny number of lynchings in the 60s doesnt qualify as 'still a lot of
hate'

Takes a lot of hate for even one lynching

Fanatasy. The lynchings were actually about keeping those they lynched
under the thumb.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.


and even more to allow the lynchers to go free.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy. They just agreed with the
lynchings.

Oh man I forgot about that line. I'll start using it some later.

Using your logic we don't have any hate now because there are those
"spewing that love ****."

You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.

More of your award winning debating skills in use.

Yours in spades.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.


You're the one stupid enough to believe that what some fool that was
stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans is purported to have said
has any relevance what so ever to today.

Let's see. Love your neighbor as yourself. Are you saying that living by
that rule has no relevance today?

Yes, you have to consider who your neighbour is and even if your
neighbour is a very decent person, there isnt any point in loving
them as yourself anyway, they are just your neighbour, not yourself.

Your neighbor is everyone else. If I love my neighbor as myself I'm going
to help them and respect them. You statement shows how you think, no one
maters but you. If you have to screw your neighbor to get what you want, no
problem.


Most of the 10 commandments make no sense anymore either.

None of them make any sense to someone like you. Why not kill if someone
has what you want?


And plenty of them like the proclaimation of pride is
ignored by almost all who claim to be 'christians' anyway.

I think you are FINALLY begining to get it. Those who CLAIM to be
christians, not those who ARE Christians.


And what is the point of grovelling to some damned god thats such
an arsehole that it just yawned as 10M of its 'chosen people' were
pumped up the crematoria chimneys and allows the worst child abuse ?

Which makes my point very well. That's not following the rules of Christ
therefore not Christian.


A fool born to some slut with a rather novel way to explain the
unexpected brat, 'god dun it'. Yeah, right.

And you believe that there was a big bang and poof there was then
something made from nothing.

You have absolutely no idea what I believe on that.

True, but everyone has to believe that at some point something had to come
from nothing.


What's the difference?

Pathetic, really.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's?

Never been into stupid stuff like that.

And yet you claim that my stating there was hate in the 60's

Nothing like what you actually said.

was "Just another of your silly little fantasys."

Yep, thats what you actually said is.

Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that.

Or havent got a clue about what was being discussed.

You seem to be the one unable to follow the topic at hand.

Easy to claim.

Easy to prove, just have someone read the posts and try to follow you
thoughts.

Easy to claim.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color.
Most of them don't.

Sure they do, just read their literature on how much they love
themselves.

Pathetic.

Another thing you and they have in common.

Pathetic.

You repeating yourself again.

Corse you never ever do anthing like that yourself, eh ?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not.

What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil
war??

All.

Nope, it aint a holy war for starters.

Tell that to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who
are killing the Sunnies

That aint a holy war.

Let's see, they are killing each other because of difference in religion

No they arent. Its just the usual sectarian ****, they kill kurds etc
even more enthusiastically.

What is the difference between "sectarian ****" and a holy war?

Most obviously when its mindless tribal **** between those of the same
sect.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


but you don't call that a holy war. Just how do you define a holy war?

Stuff like the crusades and the spread of islam thru north africa.

So for you to be a holy war it has to be one religion against another?

Nope.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

or others who believe they have to kill the infidels.

There are **** all of those too.

I give up what does that even mean?

**** all of those are killing infidels because they are infidels.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

They are getting killed because they are the invaders instead.

Ok, you left out a comma,

No I didnt.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


got it now.

The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit
people for a 'holy war' for control of the oil and the money it
brings.

Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil.

Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist
want control of Iraq.

No we arent.

Try to stay on topic.

How is me denying that claim you made me not staying on topic ?

You keep changing topics in mid reply.

Like hell I do.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


The question raised was why terrorist wanted to control Iraq

No it wasnt. YOU made that stupid pig ignorant claim about what terrorists
are about.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


and I said it was about oil money.

Pity that the primary support for the terrorists in Iraq is coming from
countrys that have plenty of their own oil. They dont need Iraqi oil.

But with more oil there's more money which means more weapons and the like.


Not editing so much might help,

I didnt edit a damned thing.

Yes you have.

No I havent.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


For one thing you split my replies

That aint editing, thats splitting.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


making it very difficult to see what was said.

Your selective deletion of what was said is much worse in that regard.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

The point you are responding to is the fact that terrorist need money

No they don't.

Explain to me how you support a terrorist system w/o money.

I just did with those fools that blew themselves to bits in London so
recently.

But you edited out the part where YOU pointed out that those fools used
money to buy what they needed. Thereby proving the point that you have to
have money. The bigger the 'job' the more money needed. You MIGHT be able
to show that some attacks are carried out using some stolen stuff but in the
end they all have to buy stuff.


ALL they need is the basic information on how to blow themselves
to bits effectively and even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed that its completely trivial to do that for free using the
internet.

But you need materials. Even they had to buy the H202.


And much of the terrorism in Iraq is done using what they
stole from the arms dumps at the end of the invasion.

Covered above.


and oil is a good way to get it.

It aint the only way to get it.

You tried to change the topic

No I didnt. I just rubbed your nose in that fact that that stupid claim
about money is just plain wrong, as evidence by the fact that there is
plenty of terrorism where no oil is involved at all, most obviously with
the palestinians.

Are you truly that dense or just playing stupid?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

HEY STOP USING THE PHRASES I'M USING!


Please note we are not talking specifically about oil but about money
derived from oil.

Pity that palestinian terrorism aint about money from anywhere.

Concentrate real hard and remember that we are't saying that terrorism is
ABOUT money its supported BY money. If you haven't edited it out you will
find that I pointed out that the Palestinian terrorist have been getting oil
money for years and years.


Where do you think the Palestinians get money from? A lot of it comes
from people in Saudi Arabia who get their money from oil.

**** all of it does for terrorism.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Also if you do a little research you will find that Iraq used to pay
$10,000US to families of terrorist bombers. Money which came from oil
sales.

It would have happened anyway, stupid.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


to terrorist from countries w/o oil.

Because thats the evidence that your silly claim that its always about
money is just plain wrong.

Money is what makes the world turn and w/o money you can't change the
world.

Wrong with terrorism.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

How long do you think the crusades would have lasted if the crusaders
didn't have money to pay for food?

The world's moved on just a tad since those days.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Modern terrorists pay for their food just like you and I do, by working
for it etc.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist
who get money from oil or poppies.

Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil or
poppies.

Ok, first you need to check to see if its time to take another dose of
your meds because you seem to be completely losing your ability to
focus here.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

And your obscenity of a god doesnt allow you to behave like that anyway.

Wrong again.

You'll see...

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Next carefully re-read what I wrote.

Pointless, mindless pig ignorant silly **** stays mindless pig ignorant
silly **** no matter how often its reread.

The statement above has nothing to do with the terrorist being where
the oil and poppies are

Never said it did.

then why did you say "There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil
or poppies."

Because there has always been plenty of terrorism that aint funded that
way.

What does where the terrorism happening have to do where the money comes
from?


only they are getting money from other terrorist who get their money
from oil and poppies.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

Nope, its supported by data.

Like hell it is with those fools who blew themselves to bits in London
recently.

Why not point out the ones who have blown up abortion clinics in the US?
Just because you can point out a couple of small incidents doesn't disprove
my statement.


Where do you think binny boy got his money to run his little holy war?

Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do
without.

Tell me how they did it then?

They mostly just do what everyone else does, work, get
paid for that, and are terrorists in their own time as well.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.


From selling magazines door to door? Nope from his family's oil
business.

Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do
without.

How?

See above.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

Have a look at the background of the terrorists that blew themselves
to bits in england recently and you will find that they werent
funded by oil or poppys. What minimal funding they did need
essentially came from their parents or their employment.

I never said that ALL terrorist were funded by oil/drug money.

You said its all about money. Quite a bit of the time it aint about money
at all.

Nope, I the need to control Iraq is oil and its money because they need
money to be able to force their religion upon the world. I never said it
was ALL about money.

Just rabid fantatics being rabid fanatics.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

The more money they have the faster they can force their
religion on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist
and death.

It aint about money.

Everything is about money.

There.

Yep. They need money to force their religion on the world. So I guess at
the very base it all does have to do with money. Mea culpa, see a man can
admit he made a mistake.


Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindless fundy fantasy.

Without money nothing happens in this world.

Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

They are told that their religion is the only correct religion

Another pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

Here we go again. IOW, you can't counter my point.

Already did, in spades, fundy.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


And it is true.

No it isnt.

Study their own words.

Been doing that likely since before you were even born thanks.

and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world.

Another pig ignorant lie.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

IOW, you can't counter my point.

Already did, in spades, fundy.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


Read their own words as well the history.

Been doing that likely since before you were even born thanks.

So now you are claiming to have been studing Islamic terrorist that long.
Now you are doing nothing but lying. I knew you have been lying but now
there's proof.


Can't do that w/o money.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Ok, tell me how to spread a religion around the world w/o money.

No one said anything about 'spread a religion around the world'

Ok then tell me how "they are to force it upon the rest of the
unbelieving world" w/o money.

No one said anything about forcing anything on the rest of the world
either.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.


And you cant force anything on the rest of the world with money anyway.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

Plenty of religions arent even into spreading their religion at all.

We are talking about one specific religion. Remember?

No we arent.

Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

I'd love to know so that I can start spreading mine at no cost.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out how that is
done using the internet if someone was actually stupid enough to lend
you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

Wow, you know where to get free internet web site hosting and bandwidth?

Yep.

lying again are ya?


Tell me so I can stop paying my hard earned money.

No thanks, there's enough fundy **** out there already.

As your words are proving; the more you let a fool talk the more the world
can see just how a big of a fool he is. You can't even support your own
points. You have to use little catch phrases such as:

You are pathetic.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
Another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

At best you are a closed mined, ignorant, bigoted, big mouth, fool who can't
support his arguments without insults and stupid little catch phrases. At
worse you are a mentally unstable person in need of proper treatment.


reams of your mindless repetitive **** flushed where it belongs

If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what
you can do to prevent it.

And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine.

I don't care,

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrlevant.

Make up your mind.

Made it up before you were even born thanks.

I doubt it, you strike me as not even being out of school yet, unless you
dropped out. Seeing as how poor your comminuting skills are I'd guess a
drop out.


As a Christian am I a danger to the world

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

You have implied that all religions are a danger to the world. Therefore I,
as a member of a religon, am a danger.


or "completely and utterly irrlevant"?

Who said he was as thick as a brick ?

I give up, who?


I have done my part.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

The rest is up to you and God.

There is no god, just an endless variety of crutches for pathetically
inadequate 'minds'

Please show this inadequate mind what was happening before the big bang?

I never said a word about the big bang, fundy.

No, that was me. See I'm asking you a question. You are supposed to reply
to the question not ignore it. Of course that is what you seem to do quite
often.


But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the
police power of the state, to change.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.

Me in specific or me as a Christian in general?

All of the above.

So now you claim both.

Must be one of those rocket scienist rabid fundys.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


If you believe this then why do you fear us so?

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fantasys.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's
the only one who knows what right in the world.

You'll burn child. That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up
by the romans said very unambiguously indeed that you cant do that
sort of thing.

Just another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that
fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans told him to
do.

I do think you should talk to the docs about adjusting your meds.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.


reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
where it belongs

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.


You'll burn, fundy.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

I do have to admit that it is a lot easier to use your method of debating.
No need to think or provide support for your side just insert a catch phrase

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges
the Pope's primacy. The
nature of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics
should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him
and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more.

They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys.

They have confession for a reason, stupid.

IIRC, confession is for you to admit your wrongs, get them forgiven and
to say you won't do it
again. Not to allow you to keep on getting away with something.

They dont in fact boot people out who keep confessing
and keep saying that they wont do it again.

Never said they did. Only using it as another example of how they are not
following what is taught in the Bible. If you read it yourself you will find
that if a fellow Christian screws up and will not stop screwing up after
several attempts to get him to correct his behavior he is to be, for lack of
better terms, put out of the Church. As I said, different rules for
believers.


As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time
with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all
things.

Only rabid fanantics ever do that.

IOW, only the true Catholics.

You wouldnt know what a true catholic was if one bit you on your lard
arse, fundy.

Sure I do. They are the ones who follow the teachings and rules of the
Catholic church.


Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my
life (I dated one for a
while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the
teachings of the church. The
rest looked at them as guidelines not rules.

And that has always been one way of doing a religion.

IOW, they want to be called Catholic but not have to be Catholic.

Or there might just be more than one way of doing a religion, fundy.

Not when it comes to Catholicism. (Ok I should put Roman Cathloic there is
the Greek Orthodox Cathloics.) Either you are a Catholic or you are not.
My example of a vegetarian shows that. Either you eat meat or you don't.
If you don't eat meat then you ARE a vegetarian, if you do eat meat you are
NOT a vegetarian. You either follow the laws of the Catholic church and be
a Catholic or you don't follow the laws and you are not a Catholic. You can
call yourself a vegetarian or Catholic or a tree if you want but calling
yourself something doesn't make you one.


Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate
like that too.

More faulty logic.

We'll see...

That's like a kid saying it must be ok to shoplift because plenty of
other kids do it.

Nothing like with the more trivial rules that anyone
with a clue has noticed change over time, like
saying the mass in the local language or in latin etc.

So? Laws are changed all the time (read about prohibition in the US) but it
doesn't change the fact that you are required to obey the ones in effect at
the time. A lot of people thought the prohibition laws were 'silly' and
didn't follow them. Those who didn't follow the law might have claimed to
be law abiding people but they were not.

If people in the RC church don't like the rules then they have some choices:

1) Be a real Catholic. follow the rules and do nothing about them.
2) Be a real Catholic, follow the rules and try to get them changed.
3) Be a fake Catholic, ignore the rules and claim to be a Catholic.
4) Find a church with rules they agree with and join it.


Even with mindlessly silly **** like the selling of indulgences etc.

Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out.

Only fakers claim to be one thing but are really something else.


Most roman catholics just carry on regardless and realise that
very little doesnt change over time with the relatively trivial crap
like what women can do in the cult, what the cult's positiion is
on what schools the cult member's brats can attend, what
has to happen with marraige with non cult members, what
cult members should do church attendance wise, etc etc etc.

IOW, they want the privileges of the church but not the responsibilities
that come with it.


Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't
follow their own rules.

Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork,
beef, chicken and fish. Now
am I a vegetarian or not?
It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays.

Sure it is. What makes a Catholic a Catholic or a Baptist a Baptist?
Its following the rules.

Fantasy with that particular cult.

And plenty of protestant cults have no rules handed down by
bigwigs in the heirarchy, because they have no hierarchy at all.

Tell me of a few, if you can.


I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have
been talking about them)
but I don't go to mass,

It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally
?

You are adding to my scenario to fit what you want.

Nope, I'm rubbing your stupid rabid fundy nose in the
fact that its nothing like as black and white as you claim.

Lying again and didn't even cut out the facts that prove it. I clearly
state "don't go to mass" you add "only going occasionally" to make it fit
your idea. You still haven't answered my question. Would that person be a
Catholic (the one in my question not yours) or not?

I said "don't go to mass," not "don't go to mass regularly,".

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.

IOW, I am right and you are wrong and you are not man enough to admit it.


have sex outside marriage, use birth control and
support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid.

So I'm a law abiding citizen and will be allowed to remain living free
with all the other law abiding citizens if I shoot an illegal immigrants
because I think the ban on shooting illegal immigrants is stupid?

Nothing like ignoring the ban on birth control because you realise
its stupid and completely counter productive in the third world.

Try to answer the questions. It really isn't that hard. After all it is a
yes or no question.


In spades with the ban on condoms in the parts of the world were HIV/AIDS
is rife.

Simple, if you want to use condoms then pick a religion that allows it. Or
just make up your own religion. Doesn't bother me. What bothers me is
people claiming to be something but not living up to it. It doesn't matter
if its a Catholic that uses condoms, a Christian who screws around or an
environmentalist who flys around in a private jet.


If you think the ban on birth control is stupid why
would you want to follow a church that preaches that?

Because they will likely come to their senses on that eventually just like
they did on that question about whether the sun revolves around the
earth and you can ignore that particular ban with complete impunity.

Nope, but if you'll notice that that rule was changed as well as many
others. Has nothing to do with my argument that you have no right to claim
to be a member of a group if you don't follow the rules of that group.

To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO.

Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic.

That's funny.

We'll see...

You calling someone who believes that if you don't want
go to hear about God I leave you alone a "rabid fanatic".

Its that mindless **** of yours above that if you dont agree
with some detail of what the cult currently claims are the
rules then you must leave is what makes you a rabid fanatic.

So I guess I can claim that I'm a Catholic then even though I don't believe
their rules.


You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular
cult has hardly ever operated like that, and the downsides that
have happened when it has actually been stupid enough to let
rabid fanatics like you operate like that in that particular cult.

Then what rules does a person have to follow to not be called a member of a
group? Can I claim to be a vegetarian? I eat vegetables. That pesky
little fact that I also eat pork, beef, chicken, fish, and the like has no
bearing on it. At least according to your logic.



What phrase do you call people who want to
pass laws forcing their view of religion on you?

They're rabid fanatics too. Fortunately there are **** all of
those in any decent democracy and I choose to live in one
of those myself and whatever they want, there isnt even the
remotest possibility of them ever being able to achieve that.

To use one of your oft use phrases; Only in your pathetic little drug crazed
fantasyland.

Read some history. I'd suggest you read how Germany went from a civilized
country to what it became. I'll give you a head start Hitler was voted into
office.


Even the wahabis arent into that either and
you cant get much more rabid than them.

Read more about them. For one thing you have just a few choices if you want
to live in an Islamic country;

1) Be Islamic.
2) If you are not Islamic but are a follower of Abraham, i.e. Jewish or
Christian you can;
2a) convert to Islam
2b) pay to continue practicing your religion but your kids must convert
to Islam.
3) If you are not Islamic and not a follower of Abraham you must convert or
be killed.


You don't see many of those in the roman catholic church
anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead.

No you don't see many of them because the RC church rather
have non-Catholic Catholics filling the pews and offering plates
than having to sell some of their pretty buildings.

Have fun explaining how they delt with Luther.

You know I don't see many people in the church who hang around with Luther.
Hum, could be because that was a few years ago.


That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can
formally question some of the tenets of the church without
being excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be
questioned, and the details about how it works, but it's an
involved enough process that I'm guessing the people you're
talking about are merely lapsed to some degree and not
"officially" questioning the church.... :-)

My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked
them because they are world known and I know a little about their
religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on
actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group.

But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like
you.

And what group is that

Those with such stupid ideas about following 'rules'

Such as vegetarian who think fellow vegetarians shouldn't eat meat. Now I
think I get your point.


and what am I so rabidly fanatic about?

That if they dont abide by all the 'rules', they should leave.

That particular cult has never worked like that.

Seems to me that in the past they did some really nasty things to people who
didn't follow their rules. Maybe I'm thinking of vegetarian instead of
Catholics.

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many
decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges
the Pope's primacy. The nature of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics
should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and
his teachings on birth control, divorce and more.

But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply
sins that should be confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's
primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of England that she isn't the
rightful heir to the throne.

I see your point. But by confessing and not repenting are they not
saying that they think the church, and by extension the Pope, are wrong?

Nope, they're saying that they cant manage to be as good as is desirable,
particularly on stuff like not being as charitable as they should, polite
etc etc etc.

So repeat criminals are just law abiding citizens who just "cant manage to
be as good as is desirable" and they are not saying that they don't believe
the laws apply to them


BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting.

No one ever said it was.

Just wanted to make sure you knew the difference because when you confess
you are suposed to be repentent not just saying you want to be forgiven for
this time and have an out for your next planned time.

There's a major difference between tripping and falling into the mud and
jumping in.


Repenting means you are doing penitence because you are sorry you did
something NOT so you can be forgiven this time and be ready for the next.

Its more complicated than that in that particular cult.

You could even buy indulgences, and presumably still can.


And you can claim to be a vegetarian.

As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time
with practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all
things.

Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all
things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and
acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no longer
actively practice.

Most in fact are selective about the trivia they bother with, most
obviously
with eating fish on friday, sending their brats to schools run by the
cult,
birth control, etc etc etc and dont even bother to confess that stuff.

IOW, they want to be called Catholics not be Catholics.


The ones I'm talking about are the ones who go to mass, have confirmation
for their kids and the like but regularly use birth control and do other
things the church say are no-nos.

These are the ones I call non-Catholic Catholics.

Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic.

Just because I follow rules? I also follow many laws I don't agree with
does that make me a "rabid fanatic" even though I work, within the rules, to
change them?


If they are no longer actively practicing then I don't consider them
former Catholics, i.e. not Catholics.

You have always been, and always will be completely and utterly
irrelevant.

You maybe but I do many things that effect others around me.


You're just another rabid fanatic who doesnt actually
have a clue about how that particular cult works.

I don't need to know how someone who claims to be a vegetarian lives I only
need he eats meat to know he isn't a vegetarian no matter how loudly he
claims to be.


Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't
follow their own rules.

Which is my point.

No it isnt.

Yes it is. If you don't follow the rules of X you are not an X. You are a
faker and hypocrite. Go to all the environmental rallys you want, give
money to every environmental group known to man kind, demand that others
stop driving SUV's, wear a shirt claiming you are an environmentalist every
day and none of it matters if you pour your used motor oil into the ditch
behind your house, burn your trash in a barrel in your backyard and such
like. You are thing but a faker and hypocrite.

Tell the world you are a Catholic and ignore the rules layed out by the
church and you are nothing but a faker and hypocrite.

Tell the world you are a Christain and ignore the rules layed out in the
Bible and you are nothing but a faker and hypocrite.

That's my point.


I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and
fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not?

Its nothing like as black and white as that with eating fish on fridays.

If the church demands that Catholics eat fish on Fridays then it does. Two
things, first they never HAD to eat fish on Friday only not eat "meat"
(don't ask me who fish flesh isn't meat) and second I think they have
changed
that rule.


Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of
faith -- but I get your meaning.

You can put in a religion and non-religious actions if you rather.

Non religious actions are irrelevant a faith.

Huh?


I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have
been talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside
marriage, use birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a
Catholic?

Yep, a lapsed one who may get his act into gear on that stuff later.

Half right. Only if they are sorry that they have done it and are not still
doing it.

Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs
so that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these
signs don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should
be notified.


Transportation engineer BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!! wiping tears
from my eyes Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.

As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
accidents (one time involving a state trooper).

The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
tractor, bike or cow..

Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
fixed.

Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
(several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
repainted the lines.
Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

Why don't you try to sue your state.

Not that stupid.

Glad to see your self-esteem is getting better.


You'll find out that something controled by a bunch of power hungry
lawyers has made itself fairly lawyer proof.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

Have fun explaining those who have done just that and won.

Why should I, I never claimed it couldn't be done. People have even sued
the feds and won. Which is even harder.

Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.


Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can **** off someone
in control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had
people in cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded
grain truck doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I
were on a bicycle.

I suggest you not ride a bike, because motorists obviously hate you.
Either that, or carry some grain you can offer. Perhaps the driver was
hungry and wanted your booty.

So you are saying that you have NEVER had a problem with a dangerous driver?
If so you are very luckily.

]] Now that north american society has little use for the totally unskilled
]] who dont want to work,
]
] How many can there be, with a 4.5 percent
] unemployment rate, and 3.0 percent means everybody
] holds a job for 3 years and takes 4 or 5 weeks to
] find another job.

Because if you aren't looking for a job you are not included in the
unemployment rates. IOW, all the people sitting at home drawing welfare
checks are not unemployed, they are government employees.

I hate using facts with you - you seem to do so well with very few at
all - but a general requirement to draw unemployment in most U.S.
states is that you ARE looking for employment, unless you have a
qualified reason to not do so - generally a current impairment.

I went back and got the msg I was replying to.

Mea culpa, it seems that I failed make my point clear. My point is there
can be million of them in the US because the unskilled bums don't have to
work because they can sit at home and the government will pay them.

Since they have a great job working for the government they are not looking
for jobs and therefore not counted in the unemployment numbers. This is
where all the "totally unskilled who dont want to work" are.

One of the grade schools around here had a guy shooting students at an
elementary school. That wasn't even a school related thing but some
looney who went over the edge. He just drove up and started shooting
through a chain link fence.
I would put a pointer to the newspaper but out hick town paper wants
money to go through the archives.

You must be be mistaken. This could not have happened because the
government has made it illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a
school.

Isn't it strange how you very rarely hear about shootings in places where
the criminals think there might be someone with a gun?


When was the last time you saw a 'law abiding' criminal, or flat out
lunatic?
"Uh, let's see now, I can't go near the school so I'll just snipe a few."

Sign of the times??

Sarcasm is lost on some people but others get it. Unfortunately on only 3
hrs of sleep I'm not sure which category your reply fits into.

Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
getting to people even now.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

I seem to have missed the org msg so what other links do you have other than
one from a com-si major?


The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
population. Birth rate makes the difference.

Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to limit
the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be sustained
at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be wars, either
holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't
understand the human condition.

It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.

The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
Birth rate makes the difference.

That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
backward ones.

If all this is true then things will get really messy when nature works it
out via famine, disease and/or wars.


It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others
will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our
money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the government
puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for things like,
oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of starting
things they can't control. I think that general fund is pretty wiped right
now since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly'
countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now.
We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

First off you can thank FDR for the basic problem with SS. Anyone with a
little sense should have known that a pyramid scheme such as this would fail
at some point. Remember your money is going to pay for the people retired
today, not being saved. Had to be that way because the first people who got
it (my grandparents for one) had paid almost nothing into it.

Second, its LBJ and the dems who have gotten SS into the problem its in now.
They are the ones who decided since there was so much money just laying
around in the SS funds they should use it to start buying votes (remember
the war on poverty which we seem to still be losing). It was supposed to be
a retirement safety net. They expanded it to cover more and more people.

Third, the SS fund was empty LONG before either Bush (IIRC, or even Reagan)
got into office. I believe it was sucked dry in the Carter years but I may
be off on that. Any way, the dems were the ones who got a great idea to get
around not using SS funds for general revenue. They just started
'borrowing' from the SS fund.

Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
will just say 'screw this'. There is already a fairly large 'under the
table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large
do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

no spam wrote:

True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't
following them then it doesn't matter what name they use)
those rules a Love God completely and love your neighbor
as you love yourself.

How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.

Really,

Yep.

what other rules did he say there were?

Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.

IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them.

Guess which pathetic little rabid fundy has just got egg all over
its pathetic little face, as always ?

Even someone as stupid as you must have noticed the one about the
eye of the needle.

Then there's the one about throwing stones too.

They aint the only ones either.

You are funny.

You are pathetic.

You are pathetic.

Corse this wouldnt be you repeating yourself would it ?

Those are called parables and they are not rules.

Bull**** with that throwing stones line.

Which is related to the two rules,

Nope.

if you love your neighbor like you love yourself you aren't going to stone them.

Mindlessly silly. Stoning to death is one of punishments for some
crimes, it aint just throwing stones at your neighbours, fool.

Think of it this way;

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought, fundy.

in football you have a rule that covers all personal fouls not one rule against kicking an
opponent, another against late hits, another against giving weggies, etc.

Irrelevant to stoning to death for adultery, fool.

Parables are told to show how you should live up to the only two
rules you are to follow.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Thank you for helping proving my point.

No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bull****.

You did it again.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

You examples proved that there are only two rules that Christians
have to follow.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, rabid fundy.

Try reading the Bible yourself.

Been there, done that,

And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out.

Just did.

You tried. And failed. Want to try again?

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Because they ain't in there.

Fraid so.

Prove it.

Just did.

And I unproved your proof.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fundy fantasyland.

So try again.

Go and **** yourself.

Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

Only in response to someone who does it.

Bare faced lie, obvious from your posts to others today alone.

Again you need to show proof,

I just did, your posts to others that day alone.

I may restate a point because I think someone didn't get it the first time but I don't keep using
the same phrase over and over and over.

Bare faced lie.

That and insulting people instead of trying to support your position is a sign of a small mind.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed
that you did precisely that yourself right there.

And since you cant manage anything better than that sort of
puerile ****, here goes the chain on the rest of your puerile ****.