|
|
Post by MO on Aug 28, 2003 14:42:44 GMT -5
From www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95902,00.html BAGHDAD, Iraq — It's a fair bet that one Baghdad baby won't run into anybody else in Iraq with the same name. An Iraqi couple has named their 6-week-old baby boy George Bush (search) to show their appreciation for U.S. efforts to force Saddam Hussein (search) out of power. "He saved us from Saddam and that's why we named our son after him," the baby's mother, Nadia Jergis Mohammed, told the Associated Press Television News. "It was George Bush who liberated us; without him it wouldn't have happened." Baby Bush was born July 11 to Mohammed, 34, and her husband Abdul Kader Faris, 41. His full name is George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein. If the couple had had twin boys, the father wanted to name the other baby Tony Blair (search), because he said both the U.S. and Britain liberated Iraq. Baby Bush has two older brothers, with the more traditional names Omar and Ali. The tiny boy's mother told APTN that all Iraqis hated Saddam's regime, and that President Bush freed them from his dictatorship. "If he hadn't done it the sons of Saddam would have ruled us for years," she said. As the woman did the interview, little George Bush screamed in his crib. ___________________________________________ So nice to hear some good news! |
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Aug 28, 2003 19:48:36 GMT -5
Funny, I didn't hear Peter Jennings reporting this news!  |
|
|
|
Post by oldweasel1 on Aug 28, 2003 20:09:58 GMT -5
Funny, I didn't hear Peter Jennings reporting this news! ROTFLMAO!! |
|
|
|
Post by expat on Aug 29, 2003 2:32:12 GMT -5
While the name is indeed an honor to our President, the parents must either be out of their minds (like the Johnny Cash song parents' naming the singer Sue) or looking to immigrate to the US on political asylum grounds once they and their child start catching hell from the antiAmericans there.
I mean, what is that poor kid going to have to face for having that name, no matter what the tribute to the US for getting rid of Saddam?
Unfortunately, Iraq seems to be creating more Baby Osamas now than Baby Bushes. Yes, Saddam was a repressive person, but he was also heavily repressing Islamic fundament radical extremists, such as Wahhabists. Now in the vacuum created by ending the Saddam secret police, these groups are moving in and recruiting.
Meanwhile, Halliburton has already made $1.8 billion so far, and the White House is about to ask for another $4 billion while refusing to set an end point for spending or leaving. Instead, like Cheney's refusal to tell us who really wrote the nation's energy policy, the adminsitration refuses to release any estimates; instead every six weeks asks taxpayers for another small fortune. It seems to be mission creep all over again.
Several civilian firms (such as Hallibutron) have monster contracts to build facilities that only kick in when there is a war. These companies have a lot of ex-executives in the Administration, and via the revolving door tradition will probably return, or become lobbyists. Thus, there is a built-in incentive for making money and aquiring resources (oil) via war. This does not mean that this is why they go to war, but rather that when considering war, they still have an inner voice reminding them how their personal and corporate fortune would benefit should they decide for it. In such manner, the consideration of the public good, yours and mine, stands further back from the front of the benefit line than do special interest.
Speaking of taxpayers footing the bill to repair Iraq while the US economy goes wanting, I just read where Rumsfeldt's tax refund (not income, but REFUND) was $184,000 and Treasury Secretary Snow's was $275,000! If you earn $30,000 to $40,000 you stand to get about $24. If these guys had any decency at all, they'd donate it to the soldiers whose hazard pay they helped take away, or to those soldiers' families.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 29, 2003 3:55:07 GMT -5
Most of the people in Iraq are very happy saddam is gone. Why would you assume they want to come to America to get away from people who are anti-American? America has many home grown America haters. I have come to understand the "Gloom and Doom" of some of the American press and people although I don't agree with it. The whole "Halliburton" hang up among the left just seems like a tin foil hat conspiracy theory to me. Cheney does not own stock, remember? Who SHOULD they have hired? Joe's construction? Quote from Ann Coulter's recent post: "The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and liberals are blaming the exterminator." www.anncoulter.org/This war is brilliant! The islamifascists are fighting our soldiers on their land, rather than fighting the men, women and children civilians in our cities. Special interests? Like labor/teachers unions, environmental groups, race hustlers and "women's rights groups?" Where have you been? The economy is on the rebound. Although my refund was considerably less than D. Cheney's, I am enjoying it and I am not envious. His money is not mine or the governments. It is HIS! Maybe Al Gore should give to the military. When his return was made public, he had given less than three hundred dollars to charity in a whole year! Military salaries/benefits have gone up overall, despite the shifts in the way it is administered. |
|
|
|
Post by expat on Aug 30, 2003 7:39:44 GMT -5
I repeat, to name a child after the leader of the invaders/liberators when there is a considerable, and very ruthless/nasty/cruel guerilla movement, is a stupid thing to do, no matter how glad one is to get rid of Saddam. These parents are in affect also saying “Bring it on”. Now, W can say this without fear, safe as he is in his walking enclave of Social Security Agents, and who never goes anywhere not previously swept by agents, or in front of an audience not carefully chosen. Hell, our fearless leader, unlike Tony Blair, wouldn’t even land in Iraq afterwards to visit the troops. Our big brave fighter pilot—whose handlers ordered the carrier (the USS Photo-OP) turned around so that the South California coastline wasn’t visible--had his jet fly back and forth at 31,000 feet over Iraq (well out of range of an AK47, which is about all the bad guys had left by then).
www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/nation/6026870.htmHow about opening it up to a bid in order to find out who else is qualified? Are you suggesting that the world’s number one economy doesn’t have several other qualified choices? www.towardfreedom.com/jun03/booty.htm And why not give Joe a chance? After all, what did Harken Oil have to offer when it astonished the oil world by landing a drilling contract in the Persian Gulf in 1990? “Reporters have been particularly intrigued by George W.’s adventure in the oil industry, and well they might be. There was something about it that smacked of a shell game run by a very fast hand. With a pittance of his own money but several million dollars from his family’s Wall Street buddies, George W. launched an oil company in the mid-1970s. It was a failure. But before breathing its last, the company was absorbed by Spectrum 7, another rinky-dink oil company bankrolled by Reagan-Bush types. It, too, was a failure. This time the deathbed rescue, in 1986, was a merger into Harken Energy, yet another company with slender prospects. Since he had an unbroken record of failures, George W. had nothing to offer Harken but his name. That was enough. He was made a company director and ultimately wound up with 1.5 million shares of Harken stock, making him the company’s third-largest non-institutional stockholder. He was also paid handsomely as a “consultant,” though shortly after the merger he moved back to Washington to help his father run for president. For Harken, that was the best move he could have made, it seems. In 1990, to the astonishment of the oil industry, little Harken — which had never drilled in water — beat out the international giant, Amoco, to win an exclusive offshore contract with the Persian Gulf nation, Bahrain.”<br> source: www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/fertilize_bushes.htmlOne has to be a state of true denial to miss that it is chow time at the DC Feeding Trough and Grill, and that the GOP elephant is a humongous pig with a nose job. Of course, the sleaze extends to the Democrats, too, damn them. But does that make it OK? If the Dems are on the take for $40 million, does that mean it is Okie-dokey (or Texas-dokey, in the case of Enron) for the GOP to be on the take for $100 million (2½-fold being the going ratio of “contributions”)? Are you seriously suggesting that Islamists could invade the US and fight a guerilla war here? Is this the sort of fantasies that Coulter sells? Wow! Does fighting in Iraq make another 9/11 event impossible here? Are we to believe that every last jackass terrorist has moved to Tibrit, leaving no one to send us a container full of God-knows-what to the US harbor or forwarding address of his/her choice? The US had sympathy in spades in the Mideast following 9/11, and now we, the victim, is hated more abroad than the A__holes who did it. You must be joking! Compared to the Fortune 400, what is the economic muscle of “labor/teachers unions, environmental groups, race hustlers (who in the hell do you mean?, the KKK?, Trent Lott?) and ‘women's rights groups?’" Since you own a computer and posted here, I assume you can use Google, which will show you which party is on the biggest corporate teat. When is a recovery really not much of a recovery? * When the employment situation is so hopeless that a half million jobless simply give up looking
www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2003-08-01-july-rate_x.htm) * When wages are falling. (Look at the graph and see if you can pick out the Bush years, and why haven’t these falling wages led to more jobs, as conservative economists preach?) www.bna.com/wti/highlights.htm * When exports increase, but are increasingly represented by low-value goods, and when we increasingly import high-value goods, indicating a shift in the economy’s structure towards primary industries and away from the value-creating tertiary industrial structure we have enjoyed since the industrial revolution. (http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/) * The recovery, such as it is, is an artifact of the falling dollar, which does indeed make US goods cheaper to buy, and import goods more expensive, so yes, this is an indicator of recovery. But when no new jobs are created (in fact we are still losing jobs), and the profits stay in the hands of the investing minority, (the median wage, adjusted for inflation, has been stagnant for about 30 years, and the rich just keep getting richer www.lcurve.org/ then this vaunted recovery is like a horny teenager getting his first kiss…from his cousin. BFD. See also: www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/8/1/17287144.cfm As under Reagan’s economic growth, having twice the jobs is nice, as long as it is isn’t at half the pay. But at least under Reagan employment went up. Even under Clinton-the-Rapist’s term, more jobs were created than lost, and wages rose a bit. But now while corporate profits begin to recover a little, when was the last time somebody mentioned “trickle down” to you with a straight face? I am glad to hear that you are so loyal and accepting and trusting. Cheney and W must be laughing all the way to the bank tiptoeing their way there on the heads of patriots like you, while you stand rapt still so as to not cause their champagne (I mean, California sparkling wine) to spill. I believe Gore gave two years to the military, and after graduating from Harvard, volunteered as an enlisted man, not as an officer. He went to Vietnam and actually served on the bases where he was ordered to, unlike a certain President who let Daddy place him safely out of way, and then went AWOL when it suited him. Of course, Clinton-the-sex-criminal, didn’t even get that close, did he? Here’s a link, admittedly pretty biased, that lists which of our fearless leaders, Reps and Dems, did and did not serve, and who actively avoided the draft. It seems many folks get more willing to risk others’ lives the older they get. The list won’t make either party especially proud, although both parties have folks who served with real honor and distinction. www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html Excuse me, but are you saying it’s really OK to cut hazardous duty pay for the soldiers currently in Iraq? www.veteransforcommonsense.org/ Are you so in line with your leadership that you are comfortable with the idea that it is our grunts and jarheads getting shot at who are to foot the bill for the cut tax revenues that are being doled out to the wealthy sitting in their gated, protected communities? Where does your “Yes sir, three bags full, sir!” blind loyalty draw the line? Is there nothing about the current Administration that seems a little out of spirit with our traditional civic values? Is your perception of the world so dichotic, that either one must be fully for and fully against? No shades of grey? “I vuz only folloving orders, Herr kommandt.” ? Wake up and smell the coffee. Getting rid of that jerk Clinton does not mean we replaced him with Jesus Christ, even if W, like Osama, is convinced he has been specially chosen to do God’s duty. My friend, whenever anyone in power (or out) starts talking like that “labor/teachers unions, environmental groups, race hustlers and "women's rights groups” are the least of our problems. |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 30, 2003 16:02:52 GMT -5
This thread is evidence (as if any more were needed) that some can turn good news to gloom and doom. It was supposed to be a fun little news story. I'm not going to read 20 Bush bashing links. All presidents have secret service agents and carefully planned and chosen photo opportunities. Yes! Halliburton was already there. They were contracted in the first Golf war. There is no other American company as large and able to get men and equipment there ASAP. "And why not give Joe a chance?" Joe's construction has a chance. They can be sub-contracted by Halliburton. Joe is there. I really don't see how any of the President's past business successes or failures is relevant to this discussion. "(or Texas-dokey, in the case of Enron)" Look at who turned a blind eye to Enron- www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/14/124745.shtmlNo, I'm acknowledging the fact that we are at war with them, but they have not managed to pull off another terrorist attack in the US. I must have missed all that. I remember seeing them celebrating in the streets. If the world hates us so much, maybe they'll stop coming to us with their hands out. I'd rather they fear us than love us. The Clinton/Gore recession had already begun when President Bush took office. Everyone got a tax cut (see my thread about the tax cuts). Jobs are always the last to come back but that has already started due to the tax cuts. Supply side is good economics. Gorge Bush did not go AWOL! www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/main101.aspI'm not happy with the increased social spending on failed programs (like education) and increased entitlements (like prescription drugs). I do wish the fed would pay soldiers better and spend more on military. It is after all, one of the few things they are supposed to be collecting taxes for under the Constitution. I have yet to see such a quote even though the left keeps preaching about it. Even if he did say it, it doesn't make me uncomfortable. As a Calvinist believer, I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that we are all here for His glory, and that HE is in charge. I would be more uncomfortable with a president who did not acknowledge that. In my opinion, Atheism is a religion too, and the believers make themselves God. They have produced the bloodiest massacres in history. |
|
|
|
Post by expat on Aug 31, 2003 4:59:40 GMT -5
One of the problem with fun little news stories like this is they resemble the Barney the Dino Show. I really like the way you can make wild claims about “fighting them on the streets” and liberal lobbying justifies GOP corruption and then refuse to look at any links. Maybe you should change your screen name to Sand Ostrich.“Halliburton was already there. “True, here’s a report from June 2001, prior to 9/11, about how Halliburton, working through French subsidiaries, was selling stuff to Saddam during the embargo. www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htmAs for your claim that Cheney, perhaps the man making the decision of who gets contracts, doesn’t get any money from his old boss: “The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.”Source: www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html I have to give you credit for a having a good sense of humor. Good one!Thanks for the Enron link. It supports what I have been saying: we have a corrupt system with both Dems and Reps are on the take. George Orwell, 1984, described “doublethink” as the ability to believe in two contradictory ideas at the same time. In your case, you deplore corruption when the Dems do it, but refuse to see anything wrong when the Reps do it. Cute.The article you link to is interesting, because it shows the Dems helped Enron get into international markets. The Enron-Bush ties are different in that the GOP through Congress allowed Enron to do a number on the USA.This is bad news, sure ‘nough. But let’s be fair and also look at how much slop was tossed in the GOP trough: abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/enroncfr020114.html It’s not a pretty picture. And who took the hit when the Enron scam burst? No one in management has yet to do time.I owe you an apology. I thought you were a party yes-man, but you are willing to admit the war in Iraq is still going on, something Rummy, W and Cheney deny.Yes, you seem to have missed an awful lot. Talk about gloom and doom. Yes, some Palestinians (and others) were glad, but there was massive support from almost everywhere else. I work as a translator and thus know an awful lot of folks worldwide. The translators’ message boards, user groups, & my e-mail were flooded with support letters from literally everywhere, Arab nations included, where many were fearful of what it all meant.Clearly you are either very isolated or very selective in your news sources (nothing to the left of Fox) or simply prey to an us vs them mentality that does not permit you to see the world for yourself. Did you really let the actions of some extremists so cloud your perception with hurt and rage that you missed the reactions of the vast majority of normal people worldwide who stood up for us?Exactly! Now you’re getting it. Not all of them do hate us. In fact, even the US attack on Afghanistan did not rile many Muslims. Most felt that the Talliban and Al Qaeda had it coming. What brought opinion down, and not only in the Mideast, was the way the current administration, and Tony Blair’s government, went about building their case for war. truthout.org/docs_03/060503H.shtml Most nations thought our case was weak (and so far the evidence …), but worse was simply the strong arm tactics the US used instead of persuasion. The US took a very hard “you owe us, because of WWII, and 9/11” attitude, and threatened many nations with aid and trade complications if they didn’t support the US on this. The US even tried to cut all military ties with any nation unless it signed a bilateral treaty that it would never send any US citizen to the International Criminal Court. Say what one will about that court, but no one likes to be strong armed. And this is just instance of strong arming. They were many.Spoken like a true Roman Centurion! And by Jove, you are getting your wish. But if you think fear will make people cower like whipped spaniels and do whatever they are commanded, you know nothing of history. Fear breeds contempt and counteraction. For example, the EU has been a melba-toast coalition up until now, but fear of the US, especially the Bush administration, is leading the discussion towards the need to make it much stronger to act as a counterweight to the US, and even to talk of working more with China and S.E. Asia. Of course, it will be years before the threat takes real form, and the EU may never ever really get there, but the point is that the US’s confrontational strong-arm tactics are not making us allies, but instead inducing even former allies to begin looking for other partners as insurance. This does not bode well. You may not really care about America, but I do. I do not want to see a set of might-makes-right ideologues screw up America’s future prospects.What thread? You must be a pretty egocentric guy to think you can claim no need to read contrary articles, yet ask someone else to read your links! That takes chutzpah, all right! Nonetheless, my curiosity aroused, I read the original George article. It is good to know that W did not go AWOL has I had thought. I am still not convinced that he got into the Guard fair and square, but he was scarcely alone in having that done for him.So, you defended Bushes AWOLO record, but avoided commenting on Gore’s actual Vietnam record or on his volunteering as an enlisted man instead of using privilege to either avoid service or even to come in as an officer. So I hereby am requesting that you return the favor and comment on whether you think Gore’s military record is honorable or not. You do not even have to compare it to Bush’s. Your personal faith is off limits to me, and I hope it gives you comfort and guidance. Nor am I going to argue over whether mankind has killed more people in the name of God or some other deeply felt ideology/theology. My personal feeling is that mankind has a warlike nature (as well as a peaceful nature), but that it takes strongly felt ideological/theological/racial or other emotions to really turn it loose. It is absurd to label all Christians as one way and all atheists as another. There are too many examples of good and evil persons from each group. I feel that Christianity helps a good person be good, and helps a bad person be bad. Same too of Buddhists, Muslims, animists, what-have-you. Likewise a good person who is an atheist will stay good, and a bad person who is an atheist will do bad. Borderline cases probably benefit from religious guidance, provided in is the religion of love and service to humanity. A brimstone religion of hate and vengeance probably tips most borderline people the wrong way. As a Calvinist, you are aware of why Calvin rebelled from the late medieval Catholic Church, and its example of waywardness such as the Inquisition. The Holy wars that racked Europe, such as the 30 Years War, certainly had a viciousness egged on by religious fervor. Thankfully, these passions have greatly abated in the West (the recent Yugoslavia meltdown—with Islam, Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism in close contact--- shows how these passions still grate, but are still blooming in the Mideast. I would like to see Western policy do what it can to further religious tolerance as opposed to the direct confrontation advocated by many who fear Islam. I am a little heartened that the Bush Administration is not on a full-blown anti-Muslim crusade and has tried to show some tact, even if I think it could a bit more. It’s more like they are not sensitive enough to other cultures rather than being actually antagonistic, so I fell they have room to learn and grow, and have even shown signs of doing so.I guess my big problem with W’s faith is simply how he seems to pull it out when it makes points.I am reminded of what Christ said about putting one’s religion on display to be seen doing so for brownie points: Matthew 6:5 “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”Matthew 6:6 “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”<br> |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Aug 31, 2003 6:04:36 GMT -5
No clue what you are talking about. What wild claims? I look at posted links but no, I'm not going to look at TWENTY links from one post. I really don't put any faith in "news outlets" like truthout or guardian. Check out the guardian's corrections page some time. It's even more pathetic than NYT.
The payments are part of his retirement and are not based on the company's profits. It's in a contract settlement signed before he was VP.
Both parties benefited form Enron contributions but it was the Bush administration who exposed Enron and brought them down. Top people have been arrested and are being prosecuted for their crimes. The wheels of justice grind slow but sure.
I'm not a party yes-man. In fact, I'm not a man at all! Of course there is still problems in Iraq. We overthrew their government less than six months ago. Our war is with terror and people/nations who support it. Saddam had to go. Allies will change over the years as they have in the past. No reason for all the hand wringing from the left. Might does indeed make right. The left was bunting around this same tired rhetoric when Reagan said "tear down this wall!"
Gore's military record is honorable as is George Bush's and everyone who serves this country. The Guard could have been called to duty in Vietnam. What is the point of this? Since you seem to want to discuss Gore and yesterday's news I will note that it seems funny and rather hypocritical to me that the same leftists who defended Clinton bash Bush about "only" serving in the guard. The left lowered the bar, and now they want to complain about it. Why? Because you can't come up with any REAL scandals!
Edited to add- All the Halliburton deals with other nations have been found to be legal and allowed/endorsed by the Clinton Justice Department. That's why the only ones talking about these stories are the left wing tin-foil hat conspiracy type web sites.
You can find a Bible passage to quote out of context to support anything. The Bible does not suggest that believers keep their faith to themselves. Quite the contrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by expat on Aug 31, 2003 14:37:49 GMT -5
Whoa! You have entered fantasyland. There’s a mighty difference between being in office when the Enron scam burst and “brining them down”! bush did nothing active at all, but was forced to react when Enron’s stock dove due to it’s own internal stockprice manipulations. much of which brought about by GOP dereglation.
If Iraq wasn't loaded with terrorists before, it's getting that way now. If the US really wanted to enforce regime change of nations supporting terrorist, we'd have to draft 10 million soldiers and invade a dozen more lands. If that would be enough! I think family/party pride even more than oil is the true reason we had a second go at Saddam; it was just to irksome that the bastard didn't fall following Gulf War I as scripted. If we really wanted to get rid of leaders supporting terror, we'd be in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't we?
More revisionism, once again, the GOP (Reagan) administration was indeed in office, but the USSR imploded due to its own internal decrepitude. The USA hadn’t a clue it was about to happen, our intelligence community didn’t come close to predicting it. Of course, the Reagan mythology says that they spent themselves into the grave trying to match our defense spending, but that is not even close to why they belly-upped: Their plan-economy was a dismal failure from the get go, and its fall was always a matter of time. Of course, we always played up their military and their threat as a way to justify our own military spending, and it’s probably a good thing we did to, because it did assure we’d come out on top in any fight, such as now. I’d sure hate to lose to a p__ant like Saddam. But don’t kid yourself by saying the GOP under Reagan is what brought the USSR down.
Thank-you.
You brought up Gore, not I. Nor have I ever said anything disparaging of the National Guard, thank-you.
Thus, If I have the physical power to rape someone, I’m right to do so? I’m allowed to punch out someone weaker and take their goods, because at 6’4” and 230 lbs I can? Tim McVeigh had the might to lug sacks of explosives into a truck, ergo, he was right? No ____ way. According to you, Hitler was right up to Stalingrad, then he was wrong, and Stalin and Communism was right up to 1989.
And why do you think my motive is to come up with a scandal? I have been critical of both Dems & Reps, I am an equal opportunity critic!
I’m sorry, but if you think that things are hunky-dory in the GOP and there is nothing scandalous about the goings on in the greatest giveaway of the public wealth we’ve seen since the Robber barons, nothing I can say, or link to, is ever going to make the slightest impression.
If I have to chose between Whitewater and Cheney’s secret back room deals on writing energy policy, I’ll take a Lilliputian real estate swindle any day, the scale is so small. If I had to choose between fumbled blow jobs in the Oval Office or the USA Patriot Act, fumble away consenting adults, and let Hillary divorce the person and get the car, the house, her daughter and the cat. The Democrat’s scandals, like Gore’s Chinese campaign donations can be pretty bad alright, but to be so blind by party loyalty that you can’t acknowledge the rot in your own house, simply makes one a lackey.
By all means let the Dems have it with both barrels when they screw up, but to go into active denial about one’s own side is simply pathetic.
Hells bells, if Clinton had the ties the Bush family does to Saudi Arabia with its 19 of 20 9/11 "crewmen" you folks would be raving yourself blue in the face for Kenny Starr to impeach, if not actually begging the military for a coup.
I agree with you here. That is what makes the Bible so fun, it’s got something for everyone, has more than a few contradictions, and can be easily be distorted if so desired. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have some wonderful and valuable lessons, but I do not want to live in a theocracy and feel that the nation’s founder’s decision to separate state from church was very wise, and I resent it when any politician of whatever faith or party invokes God for political advantage.
Finally, go ahead and have the last word. It is clear that neither of us is going to make much of a dent in the other’s thick skull. It’s been fun exchanging comments with you, but I feel both of us would rather spend our time doing something more productive than exchanging boinks.
Take care and have a nice holiday. You are probably a very nice person at heart. I’m sorry for being overly testy, but this Administration makes me see red, uh… I mean Blue, I mean lilly white, or is it rose-colored? Jeez, you got me all flabber-ge-busted. J
|
|
|
|
Post by USA50 on Sept 2, 2003 12:46:51 GMT -5
EXPAT,
Good work in keeping the light of sense shining on this thing. I know it's a burdensome and fulltime endeavor.
The bit missing from "you shall know the truth and it shall make you free" is the one where the truth has to be repeatedly stuck in front of some people's eyes before they can see it through the half-baked assumptions that cloud their view.
-There is no way to peace...peace is the way....
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jun 10, 2004 16:49:30 GMT -5
To:
From USA 50.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. USA 50. Your blinders are showing.
The whole thing brought up be Ex Pat is spin and dogma. It goes nowhere, convinces no one, for the simple reason it has no foundation.
Peace as defined by our enemies: All is good because all see it our way, and do what we want them to do.
All live, and recognize, the one religion and the one law.
All is Peace. Allah Inshallah.
BTW Ex Pat. Do you have kids. Did the world have an opportunity to decide if their names were "smart"? If you don't and plan too, can we decide how smart or dumb his/her name will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by rush22 on Jun 10, 2004 19:54:54 GMT -5
From: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1741171.stmA Nigerian woman has fled home with her new-born baby because her husband decided to name their son Osama Bin Laden. The unnamed woman, from Calabar in Cross River state, has decided to seek a divorce unless her husband changes his mind about their son's name, reports the Vanguard newspaper. This comes as reports from mainly Muslim northern Nigeria say that there has been a massive increase in the number of baby boys called Osama - after Bin Laden. In one hospital in Kano, where there were celebrations after the 11 September attacks, seven out of 10 babies are said to be being given the name Osama. (snip) In Kano, one hospital worker said there was currently "a season of Osama babies". "Osama Bin Laden is my hero," said 36-year-old Sadiq Ahmed, father of a baby Osama. "My wife gave birth to our third child on 15 September and I named him Osama in honour of Osama Bin Laden who has proved to the world that only Allah is invincible, by exposing America to shame despite its claim of being the strongest nation on earth." |
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jun 10, 2004 20:51:38 GMT -5
|
|
