"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 64

02-12-2007, 05:52 PM

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

> 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.

Most of us have already got our money back out of the system fine.

> 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.

And that worked fine with the Vietnam war funding.

> I think that general fund is pretty wiped right now

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' countries.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> That made sense during the communist days but not now.

> We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

Pig ignorant fantasy.

> 'nuff from me.

Too much mindless **** already.

02-12-2007, 05:54 PM

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

> 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.

02-12-2007, 07:21 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.

>>>> 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.

They only boot out those who dont bother to confess their
sins and who dont even bother to say they wont do it again.

And they arent as mindlessly hard line about some of the
more trivial stuff like contraceptives and eating fish on fridays
or sending your brats to non church schools either.

Or even getting real radical and daring to marry
someone who isnt in that obscenity of a cult either.

Or booting those who marry someone in another cult outside the RC cult either.

>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

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

Only the rabid fanatics chuck a trantrum and storm out.

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.

There's a reason that particular cult has lasted as long
as it has and so many of the more rabid protestant
cults are lucky to even manage a single generation.

>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

What you might of might not have said in spades.

>>> 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.

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

> 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.

That obscenity of a cult doesnt even require you to prove that the
reason you only have 2 brats is because you dont **** anymore.

In the case of the women who think the bad on women clergy makes
no sense, presumably they consider that they prefer the rest of the
cult better than the alternative protestant cults that allow that etc.

>>>> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

>> 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.

Have fun explaining how they delt with jews too.

>>>> 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'

> 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.

And thats why its lasted a hell of a lot longer that any protestant cult ever has.

02-12-2007, 08:05 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.

>>>> 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.

And first world catholics dont confess that they sent
their brats to a state school and not one run by that cult.

Not sure what the cult expects them to do if they choose to marry someone
outside the cult today, doubt they are expected to confess and repent anymore.

In spades if they dont bother to eat fish every friday.

> BTW, doing penitence is not the same as repenting.

No one ever said it was.

> 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.

>>>> 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.

**** all consider that the cult is the source of all wisdom anymore.

Hordes of them have are very cynical about the sillier stuff their
priest spouts in all but the worst of the mindless third world.

> 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.

That particular cult has always worked that way and hardly
ever is silly enough to let you rabid fanatics rule the roost.

You dont even see too many fanatical about
booting homosexuals out of the cult anymore.

They are very well aware that hordes of their priest are.

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

Its nothing like as hard line as most protestant cults are.

>>>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

And most of the crap like fish on fridays and even birth control arent
examples of papal infallibility anyway so they are welcome to be
selective about what rules they ignore and still be part of that cult.

>>> 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.

And you arent even a lapsed one if its just contraception and not going to mass.

>> I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and
>> culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or
>> another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go
>> to church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other
>> religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite
>> never going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus
>> celebrate Diwali despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to fast
>> during Ramadan.

> People like that will sometimes claim to be a member of a religion but they usually just claim to
> believe in god.

Wrong, the vast bulk of the catholics that behave like that
claim to be catholics and still get buried by the church etc.

02-12-2007, 09:08 PM

no spam <no@spam.net> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,

>>>>>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day.

>>>>>>> Pity that bikes arent that.

>>>>>> Depends on where you are.

>>>>>> Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either.

>>>>> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing
>>>>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about.

>>>>> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian.

>>>>>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes
>>>>>> in total much less on the road at the same time.

>>>>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

>>>>> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.

>>>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

>>> Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me.

>> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully and dishonestly
>> deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

> You have gotten so confused

Nope, not confused at all.

> you have even lost me.

You're easily lost, you're just another rabid bigot fundy.

> Let's review

> 1) I stated Jesus used the transport of his day.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly crap about bikes.

> 2) You said that it was too bad "that bikes arent that", suggesting
> that bikes are not the transport of today by using the present tense.

They arent the transport of today where that fool who
was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.

> 3) I replied that in some places bikes ARE the transport of the day in some areas.

Pity they aint where that fool who was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans was.

> 4) You brought in Christ again,

Because that was what was being discussed, what he would have ridden.

> reverting back to the past. Split up my response, see #3, and called my response to you, see #2,
> silly.

Your irrelevant **** stays completely irrelevant **** regardless.

> 5) I asked you to support yourself by telling me how me how it was silly.

Another bare faced lie.

> 6) Get off track again and refuse to respond.

Another bare faced lie.

>>> Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other
>>> than a 'quickie mart' store (they don't tend to sell
>>> much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my
>>> driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide
>>> dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county
>>> road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on
>>> a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me
>>> thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.

>> Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully
>> and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

>> What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to
>> be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use.

> That's how it started but changed it when you changed to the present tense.

No I didnt, that was implied in the original.

> If that was what you meant instead of saying :

> "Pity that bikes arent that."

> you should have said

> 'Pity bikes were not that.'

Wrong, as always.

> See words mean things

Not that you have ever noticed. You're so stupid you cant
even work out the difference between an idea and a religion.

> and when you use them poorly you don't make yourself clear.

And you could never ever bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

02-13-2007, 06:10 AM

On Feb 12, 3:37 pm, Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:
> 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

Yes, they do hate you when you hold them back. That's another good
reason cyclists need bike lanes.

I don't know though if the driver is hungry. What I know is that the
dinosaur is hungry and and doesn't want you on a bike.

02-13-2007, 08:04 AM

>>>>>>>>> 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.

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.

>

02-13-2007, 08:04 AM

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>