"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 63

02-12-2007, 10:51 AM

>> When I find times that the bike lane is lacking double parked cars, it
>> sure is a lot easier for bikes than it was before the bike lane was put
>> in place.
>
> 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 piss 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.

02-12-2007, 10:57 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> 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 are: 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.

> Those are called parables and they are not rules.

Bull**** with that throwing stones line.

> 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.

>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>>>>>>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>> <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.

>>> 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.

>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

>>>>> 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.

02-12-2007, 11:37 AM

no spam wrote:

>>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 piss 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.

Wayne

02-12-2007, 12:54 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

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

>>> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

> 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.

>>>>>>> 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.

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.

It aint about money, its about surviving.

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

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

>>> 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.

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.

And now the mindlessly silly stuff about contraception etc.

>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> FYI, the Bible allows for divorce and remarraige in some cases.

It also allows stoning to death for various crimes too.

And plenty of the protestant cults were into burning people at the stake etc too.

>>>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> These rules are set by some 'bigwigs'.

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

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

No such animal.

>>> 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.

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.

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

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

> 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.

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

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.

>>>>>>>> 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.

> and even more to allow the lynchers to go free.

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

>>> 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.

>> 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.

Most of the 10 commandments make no sense anymore either.

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

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 ?

>> 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.

> What's the difference?

Pathetic, really.

>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>> 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 ?

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>>>> 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.

> They are getting killed because they are the invaders instead.

> Ok, you left out a comma,

No I didnt.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>> Not editing so much might help,

>> I didnt edit a damned thing.

> Yes you have.

No I havent.

> For one thing you split my replies

That aint editing, thats splitting.

> making it very difficult to see what was said.

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

>>> 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.

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.

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

>>> 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.

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

Pity that palestinian terrorism aint about money from anywhere.

> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

>>>>> 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...

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

Just rabid fantatics being rabid fanatics.

>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> Read their own words as well the history.

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

>>>>>>> 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.

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

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

> We are talking about one specific religion. Remember?

No we arent.

>>> 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.

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

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

<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.

> As a Christian am I a danger to the world

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

> or "completely and utterly irrlevant"?

Who said he was as thick as a brick ?

>>> 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.

>>>>> 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.

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

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fantasys.

>>>>>> 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>

You'll burn, fundy.

02-12-2007, 01:29 PM

no spam wrote:
>> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9 billion
>> should be the absolute limit before people start going nuts from over
>> population. Read up on the Lemmings in England. Mass suicide due to
>> overcrowding. With 9 billion people all competing for space and paving
>
> Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info from
> somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a thing.
>
>
Damn,
I've been had by Disney.
My bad.
More Animal Planet and damn the Disney.
Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought that
the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle back to
that number or somewhere close to it.

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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

02-12-2007, 01:31 PM

no spam wrote:
>> 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??
Bill Baka

02-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Bill Baka writes:

>>> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9
>>> billion should be the absolute limit before people start going
>>> nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in
>>> England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people
>>> all competing for space and paving

>> Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info
>> from somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a
>> thing.

> Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and damn
> the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
> about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
> that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
> back to that number or somewhere close to it.

The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural
resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita
demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

> 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.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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.

> 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.

Jobst Brandt

02-12-2007, 03:50 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> Bill Baka writes:
>
>
>> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable, talking
>> about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing. It is thought
>> that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle
>> back to that number or somewhere close to it.
>
> The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population, natural
> resources and water being stressed as they are while the per capita
> demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Thank you Jobst. At least someone understands the situation.
>
>> 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.
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> 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.
>
> Jobst Brandt

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.
'nuff from me.
Bill Baka

02-12-2007, 05:40 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote

> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable,

Corse they arent reliable.

> talking about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing.

Nothing like that ever is.

> It is thought that the population will briefly go past 9 billion and then settle back to that
> number or somewhere close to it.

Nothing like a brick wall, thats what most of the first world has
done if you take out immigration and obviously immigrations is
irrelevant when you are talking about the world population.

Its arguable whether that will happen with the entire world, but
its certainly possible that it might, due to the same mechanism
that has seen that in virtually all modern first world countrys now.

> 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.

Mindlessly silly. The real reason is that travel is much cheaper in real
terms than it used to be in the past when only the wealthy could afford it.

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

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

No it isnt. It'll work out fine, just like it has done repeatedly in the past.

02-12-2007, 05:49 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote
> Bill Baka writes

>>>> It had the desired effect, by affecting your response. About 9
>>>> billion should be the absolute limit before people start going
>>>> nuts from over population. Read up on the Lemmings in
>>>> England. Mass suicide due to overcrowding. With 9 billion people
>>>> all competing for space and paving

>>> Your ignorance is showing again. You really should get your info from
>>> somewhere other than Disney movies. Lemmings do not do such a thing.

>> Damn, I've been had by Disney. My bad. More Animal Planet and
>> damn the Disney. Here's a link for anyone else taken in by Disney.

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

>> At any rate, I have heard of scholars, presumably reliable,
>> talking about 9 billion as almost a brick wall kind of thing.
>> It is thought that the population will briefly go past 9 billion
>> and then settle back to that number or somewhere close to it.

> The earth is not capable of sustaining the current population,

Oh bull****.

> natural resources and water being stressed as they are

Not unsustainably stretched. Water is trivially
fixed by using nuke powered desalination.

> while the per capita demand for "progress" and "mobility" spreads.

Still readily sustainable using nukes.

>> 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.

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

> The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side
> effects of population, not that we are overpopulated already.

Not a shred of evidence that we actually are.

Bugger all of us are living at HongKong population
densitys and that is obviously very viable.

> Of course the first knee jerk response to
> that is "Whom are you proposing to kill first?"

"Who are you proposing to kill first?" if they have a clue about english.

> This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.

You havent established that there is any 'condition', just claimed that.

> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to
> reduce population. Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

>> 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.

No we dont in many modern first world countrys like Japan.

They have enough sense to not let immigrants pour into their country.

> Birth rate makes the difference.

It does indeed, and virtually every modern first world country
has managed to achieve a sustainable birth rate if you leave
out immigration, so there is no need for hysterics any time soon.

Even china has worked out how to do something about birth rates.

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

No it isnt, virtually all of the developed countrys have adjusted
their birth rates without even trying to do that deliberately.