At 06:05 PM 1/18/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
Judges 11:31 - 40. Virgin Burnt Offering.
I'm glad to know that you put such stock in The Bible to believe everything
you read. If I didn't know better, I'd say that The Fool is becoming a
Christian on us. :-)
30
Jephthah made a vow to the
William T Goodall wrote:
I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
sacrifice...
Please keep your facts straight. The human sacrifice was a one-time thing.
Perhaps you meant to refer to the ritualized
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
William T Goodall wrote:
I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
sacrifice...
Please keep your facts straight. The human sacrifice was a one-time
thing.
The Fool wrote:
Judges 11:31 - 40. Virgin Burnt Offering.
And it's not something that is praised by the guy who wrote that
book
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Tom Beck wrote:
Saddam Hussein is a monster, and I'm glad he's gone, but
there are monsters in China and Syria and North Korea and
Cuba and Libya - why don't we go after them?
First, these monsters have different hid dice: Saddam might
be the worst of them _by far_. [some of them are quite
William T Goodall wrote:
I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
all worship Lucifer. That and the blood-drinking and the human
sacrifice...
serious
No, it's not. Lucifer means something like carrier of light, and it
came from the Latin translation of the
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Beck wrote:
Saddam Hussein is a monster, and I'm glad he's
gone, but
there are monsters in China and Syria and North
Korea and
Cuba and Libya - why don't we go after them?
First, these monsters have different hid dice:
Saddam might
At 10:32 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.
but we
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:32 PM 1/12/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
believe that we should invade Iraq
At 04:03 AM 1/13/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real
intentions.
But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda
uses in
recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other reason - reasons you
nevertheless also
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:03 AM 1/13/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real
intentions.
But when you true intentions include taking away arguments Al Qaeda
uses in
recruitment videos - isn't emphasizing other
A correction:
I wrote:
What's wrong with it is that the U.S. is a democratic republic, meaning
the government requires the consent of the government especially as it
^^
should be
My real problem with any attempt to defend the fact that Bush came into
office determined to get rid of Saddam by saying the reason was to bring about
regime change, save the people from Iraq, and be nicey was, during the 2000
campaign, Bush repeatedly derided the very idea of nation-building
On 13 Jan 2004, at 10:03 am, The Fool wrote:
A 'moral duty' to Lie to the american people to foment wars of
agression?
One has to wonder which god this president serves. It appears he
prefers Lucifer.
I thought Lucifer was part of the Christian pantheon anyway, so they
all worship Lucifer.
At 10:23 PM 1/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
John wrote:
If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the
Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did
above.
Sorry, John, this is completely revisionist. I posted a URL to Colin
Powell's
In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we
believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F.
but we recognize that reason D is a bit complex/disputed, and
And there are plans for invading N Korea, Cuba, Russia, China, Japan,
Columbia, New Zealand, Spain, Canada..any country you want. It's what
the military does.
Plans in the Pentagon are not the same thing as plans in the White House. I
think the point is not that the Defense Dept. was
On Sunday 2004-01-11 00:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plans in the Pentagon are not the same thing as plans in the White House. I
think the point is not that the Defense Dept. was doing its job but that
the newly installed Bush administration was thinking about invading Iraq
months before Sept.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 12:55:12AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
I like Thomas Friedman's idea that GW Bush's presidency is *NOT* Bush
II, but Reagan III, or even better, Regan Squared.
Regan made Goldwater look moderate, the W Bush administration makes
Regan look moderate
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
From the very beginning, there was a conviction
that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go, he tells
Stahl. For me, the
notion of pre-emption, that the U.S.
At 05:42 PM 1/11/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
So, is this a disgruntled employee snapping at the
folks who fired him? Or is this former member of the
Nixon and Ford admins blowing a whistle for good
reason?
I think almost certainly the former.
The piece opens with O'Neill criticizing the
At any rate, who cares about this stuff? About the most damning claim
O'Neill has is that Bush actually had far more pre-planning for the war in
Iraq than we have previously none. So, we are going to pillory Bush for
planning ahead?
Um...well...considering that he never mentioned any
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
So, is this a disgruntled employee snapping at the
folks who fired him? Or is this former member of
the Nixon and Ford admins blowing a whistle for good
reason?
I think almost certainly the former.
grin I daresay I have
At 09:14 PM 1/11/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Um...well...considering that he never mentioned any of this at any point,
and
that the reasons he's given for invading Iraq have turned out not to be the
case (no WMD, no real Al Qaeda connection, no responsibility for 9-11) -
doesn't it bother
John wrote:
If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the
Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did
above.
Sorry, John, this is completely revisionist. I posted a URL to Colin
Powell's speech to the U.N. several months back while
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtm
l
From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go, he tells Stahl. For me, the
notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do
whatever we
At 03:16 PM 1/10/2004, you wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtm
l
From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go, he tells Stahl. For me, the
notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the
27 matches
Mail list logo
