Get out

Financially assist Israel to blow them up --- solves everybody's problems and does not cost us loss of life. My guess is, that will happen fairly soon.

You're either a moron or have no regard for human life and the well being of this country if you think we should go into or assist Israel with going to war with Iran.

I Wear Pants;968267 wrote:You're either a moron or have no regard for human life and the well being of this country if you think we should go into or assist Israel with going to war with Iran.

Come on man...Oatsy for president. This is what we would do...if nobody else had nukes. It's all in there under the Project for New Century America. Google it!

Do you think that the US is any different when it comes to human rights violations? I mean....you have the former vice president going around the country glorifying torture, and pimping his book....a complete and total violation of international law...and the latest Geneva conventions...which our country initiated and signed onto in 1948.

If McCain had been elected, we would have been in southern Russia fighting Soviets...in support of Uzbekistan and the ruthless dictator there who boils alive political enemies. Of course you don't read about that here in the States. We would have obliterated Tehran by now as well.

I look for these things to happen if Cain, Sanitarium, or Newt become elected. I think Romney would wear some seat belts, but only time will tell.

QuakerOats;968026 wrote:Financially assist Israel to blow them up --- solves everybody's problems and does not cost us loss of life. My guess is, that will happen fairly soon.

You've posted some dumb shit over the years, but this one takes the cake.

You complain about big government and spending too much yet you think that the US should financially support another country in another war? GTFO

Footwedge;968343 wrote:If McCain had been elected, we would have been in southern Russia fighting Soviets...in support of Uzbekistan and the ruthless dictator there who boils alive political enemies. Of course you don't read about that here in the States. We would have obliterated Tehran by now as well.

I look for these things to happen if Cain, Sanitarium, or Newt become elected. I think Romney would wear some seat belts, but only time will tell.

This is either a lame attempt at sarcasm or you're delusional.

believer;968991 wrote:This is either a lame attempt at sarcasm or you're delusional.

No sarcasm at all. I have read the positions of McCain, Newt, Sanitarium and...especially Pee Wee Herman regarding Iran and Islamists. What happened to Iraq when we claimed they held WMD's? As for Uzbekistan, we already fund their torture loving dictator.

After all that has happened over the past decade, how can you possibly think I'm wrong here?

For Believer on Pee Wee Hernan Cain....who seems to think Pastor Parsley is the authority on the history of Islam...


"Muhammad was an illiterate desert nomad who one day began hearing voices and loud bells in his head. The voices told him he was Allah's prophet. Muhammad thought he was losing his sanity, but with the encouragement of his wife he began to believe the voices. Muhammad eventually saw it as his mission to unify the Arabian tribes under the teachings given to him by his one true god – Allah.
Muhammad died in 632 A.D. Since Muhammad was illiterate and never wrote anything down, his followers spent the next 60 years compiling his teachings and revelations, based on their memories and notes. The resulting document is the holy book of Islam, called the Quran. But, as Pastor Parsley notes, the Quran is only authoritative in Arabic: "In any other language, the Quran is unofficial and unsuitable for doctrine." When we consider the fact that approximately two-thirds of the world's Muslim population today is illiterate, this means the majority of Muslims cannot read their religion's most important book. Further, it means that Islam can be interpreted and taught any way its leaders desire. One aspect of Islam that Muhammad taught is the obligation to jihad. Jihad means "struggle" and Islam teaches that men should engage in four struggles: jihad of the tongue, jihad of the hand, jihad of the heart and jihad of the sword. The jihads of the tongue, hand and heart refer to personal discipline and character development. The jihad of the sword requires Muslims to spread their faith throughout the world and convert Christians and Jews – infidels – or put them to death. Numerous passages in the Quran encourage violence against non-Muslims..."

http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-061406.asp

But we all know that Footy is our resident muslim, so don't go dissin' him.

Mr. 300;970467 wrote:But we all know that Footy is our resident muslim, so don't go dissin' him.

Sharia Law will kick in, eh?

believer;970496 wrote:Sharia Law will kick in, eh?

More from Herman in the same article....


"Pastor Parsley explains further: "Thus, when Muhammad began to teach that all who die in righteous fighting go to paradise, he established the only means by which a Muslim can be certain of his place in eternity." In other words, live a devout life according to the Quran's teachings and you may be allowed a place in paradise. Or, fly a jet plane into the World Trade Center, killing yourself, your partners and 3,000 Americans. You are now an instant martyr and your place in paradise is assured. Nearly every day, somewhere in the world, a Muslim commits a terrorist act."

And this guy is running for president?

QuakerOats;968026 wrote:Financially assist Israel to blow them up --- solves everybody's problems and does not cost us loss of life. My guess is, that will happen fairly soon.

You do know that will not solve the problem right?
Only an idiot thinks strikes will stop the Iranian program.

The program is more advanced than Iraq and Syria when they were bombed.
Iran has 10 of sites, mostly buried that even bunker busters may not totally destroy.
In addition, it is not like bombing a plant, where suddenly the nuke program is setback by years, centrifuges can be rebuilt and hidden.
Plus, it does not stop the most important part of it, the knowledge aspect of it, the Iranian scientists.

The costs do not justify what little will be gained by bombing.


Instead, the U.S. should continue the covert war of cyber weapons, assassinations, and stopping shipments of raw material needed for the centrifuges.

Cleveland Buck;964269 wrote:Maybe that's what they need then. I bet there won't be so much conflict if they know their will be Sunni and Shia and Kurd and Israeli nukes flying all about and wiping the entire region off of the map.

I'm not willing, nor should anyone with vested interest in the region, be willing to take that bet.

Footwedge;970501 wrote:More from Herman in the same article....


"Pastor Parsley explains further: "Thus, when Muhammad began to teach that all who die in righteous fighting go to paradise, he established the only means by which a Muslim can be certain of his place in eternity." In other words, live a devout life according to the Quran's teachings and you may be allowed a place in paradise. Or, fly a jet plane into the World Trade Center, killing yourself, your partners and 3,000 Americans. You are now an instant martyr and your place in paradise is assured. Nearly every day, somewhere in the world, a Muslim commits a terrorist act."

And this guy is running for president?

We learned from the last presidential election that following the teachings of a radical nutbag pastor don't matter. Scratch that one off your list.

Footwedge;968343 wrote:I look for these things to happen if Cain, Sanitarium, or Newt become elected. I think Romney would wear some seat belts, but only time will tell.

Looks like Cain has the seat belt on.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich said at the Republican presidential debate here Saturday night that they would be willing to go to war to keep Iran from attaining nuclear weapons if all other strategies failed.

Herman Cain also opposed military action against Iran, saying the U.S. should increase sanctions, deploy ballistic missile warships in the region and assist the opposition movement.

majorspark;971694 wrote:We learned from the last presidential election that following the teachings of a radical nutbag pastor don't matter. Scratch that one off your list.

Obama wrote an editorial espousing the views of Reverand Wright? Show me.

Footwedge;971769 wrote:Obama wrote an editorial espousing the views of Reverand Wright? Show me.

Obama attended his church for twenty years. You don't sit in the pew year after year if you do not espouse the pastors views. I would not sit for more than one Sunday.

majorspark;971783 wrote:Obama attended his church for twenty years. You don't sit in the pew year after year if you do not espouse the pastors views. I would not sit for more than one Sunday.

I didn't think so.

Footwedge;971994 wrote:I didn't think so.

I would argue that Obama sitting in Wright's church for twenty years is far more telling than Cain quoting a few words from one pastor. Actions speak louder than words.

majorspark;972043 wrote:I would argue that Obama sitting in Wright's church for twenty years is far more telling than Cain quoting a few words from one pastor. Actions speak louder than words.

I dunno. One listens to it and another cites it. Which one shows actual proof that he espouses either of the beliefs?

To be fair, I don't think it matters.

O-Trap;972150 wrote:I dunno. One listens to it and another cites it. Which one shows actual proof that he espouses either of the beliefs?

To be fair, I don't think it matters.

It absolutely matters. I don't care if you espouse another's beliefs or expose yourself to another's beliefs you are most definitely effected by those beliefs.

As you are what you eat, you are also a product of your surroundings.

believer;972163 wrote:It absolutely matters. I don't care if you espouse another's beliefs or expose yourself to another's beliefs you are most definitely effected by those beliefs.

As you are what you eat, you are also a product of your surroundings.

Affected? Sure, but not necessarily in support of them. Just as a young man can sit in church for a score without believing in God, one can sit in a church and not agree with the tenets held by the pastor or church body.

I know a little something about that.

ptown_trojans_1;971675 wrote:I'm not willing, nor should anyone with vested interest in the region, be willing to take that bet.

Well then there is only one way to ensure these radicals never get nuclear weapons. Let's reinstitute the draft and start the invasion. We will have to invade and occupy every nation on Earth that isn't ally to make sure the terrorists don't run and hide somewhere else, but that's fine. As long as we can keep the power on at the Fed we will be able to print the money to pay for it. We better get started.

majorspark;971783 wrote:Obama attended his church for twenty years. You don't sit in the pew year after year if you do not espouse the pastors views. I would not sit for more than one Sunday.

No, Obama never wrote...nor did he speak of espousing Wright. Never. When questioned about the matter, he in fact denounced some of the rhetoric of Wright. He never, ever cited Wright either publicly or privately as an advocation for his beliefs.

Compare and contrast to what Cain did. Not only did he espouse the lunatic Parsley, but he did so by writing a couple of editorials for the whole world to see.. When you wsign your name to a public writing, you are showing the whole world what you think.

The only absolution that I can have give regarding Cain....he could mea culpa his support for this whackbag, and say something to the effect that his op=ed was 5 years ago, and he's re-evaluated his nutball thinking.

Muslims do not commit an act of terrorism "every single day" as Cain referenced. That is some really "out there" schit to say.

Here is what Obama had to say after Rev Wright made a few speaches...


[INDENT]"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday... The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.... What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for, and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people. ...[A]fter seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. ...[W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this."[SUP][91][/SUP][SUP][


If and when Cain retracts his written op-eds on the "brilliance" of Pastor Parsley, then we can talk, Sparky. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Once a broad brush Islam hater...alway a broad brush Islam hater.[/SUP]
[/INDENT]