America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by JonR. 106 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
THREE REASONS TO VOTE FOR BUSH
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
JonR

screw kerry if he doesn't know what kind of car his family has.

i'll vote for george w.
00camper Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 07-11-2003
Posts: 2,326
Three reasons to vote for Dubya:

[1] The Tax Cuts.
With three children the tax cuts are worth about $100 a month for my family. Some of you are cynical about the $100 but let me put it to you this way: dinner out and a movie with drinks and popcorn is about $100 in the Louisville Kentucky area. For us, then, the extra $100 means another evening out EVERY MONTH where my wife gets a break from dealing with the kids. That alone is enough to earn my vote.

[2] The War on Terrorism.
President Bush was willing to take the war to the terrorists instead of waiting for more attacks inside the United States. Just like general Lee's push into Pennsylvania or Sherman's march to the sea, the strategy of taking the war to the enemy's shores will work if the politicians don't lose their nerve in the short run.

[3] George W. Bush Is Not a Showman or Media Houond.
President Bush, unlike his predecessor, is not a media hound. Dubya isn't perfect on television. He looks and acts like a real person. I know that I couldn't look and act polished with 25 often-hostile reporters with cameras and microphones shoved toward me every time I left home, and I doubt that many of the people on this forum could do so either. I like having a President who isn't afraid to let people see that he's not totally perfect.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
00camper

$100.00 a month is nothing to be cynical about. 1 trip to the san diego zoo cost's about that. raising a family, $100.00 a month extra is damn good money
drjothen Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-17-2003
Posts: 319
1: John Kerry
2: John Kerry
3: Hillary Clinton
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
drjothen

your post is not very original

"JOHN KERRY..JOHN KERRY..JOHN KERRY. Nuff said ! JonR"
dbguru Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
I just thought we should check with news sources to consider Al Quedas reasons for voting for bush in case you neo-cons were interested in who your fellow Bush supportes were.... Thats right you and Al-queda just love Bush!! be proud of it

From Yahoo news

A group claiming to have links with Al Qaeda have made a statement calling a truce with Spain and has said it will cease all operations until they learn of the intentions of the new Spanish leadership. They also claim to support Bush's relection campaign because, "it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

news.yahoo.com

In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.
"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
dbguru Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Pardon my spelling...
Charlie Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Pardon your spelling-OK, content is bad! LMAO

Charlie
Charlie Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Pardon your spelling-OK, content is bad! LMAO

Charlie
grond Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
Rick,

John Kerry owns motor vehicles when he is campaigning in Detroit trying to earn the auto worker's vote yet when asked about his owning gas guzzlers by environmentalists on Earth Day he states that he doesn't own them... it's his FAMILY that owns them.

Kerry can't seem to call a spade a spade except when he needs a spade. That was my point. Sorry that my point went over your head.
usahog Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I LMAO @ DB... have too... your outside knowledge of our Constitution and the Laws of this land... Spain, Al,Quida, France, or any other Tom, ******, or Harry Country who supports or doesn't support Bush or Kerry for that matter.. does not have a say when it comes down to closing that curtan on "ELECTION DAY" it makes me LMAO that you fill your head and heart with such retoric as the postings of "News Sources" and crap you pull up to read... and it is a CRIME for taking Monitary's for support to any elections held in these United States.. Remember the Clinton/China dealings and also Al Gore??? Well there you go.. so these other Country's and Terrorist groups want to hold their own made up elections to see who would get office in these United States I guess that could be their perogative.. but I think they have allot more things to worry about then who gets in office for right now... and you bit off the Media's slant Hook Line and Sinker...
Thanks for the Laugh!!!!!

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
grond

over my head?

surely you jest. a silly remark about my inability to grasp subtleties, just does not make it.
JonR Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Yo CigarBid db:

Greetings and Salutations!

Before I forget, say hello to your cousin baghdad bob for me.

How could you be so stupid? al qaeda used reverse phycology on you and you fell for it hammer and sickle, LMAO over you and "ya freakin hoo". JonR

grond Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
Author: RICKAMAVEN Date: 05/31/2004 04:17 AM

grond

"3) He proudly admits that he owns motor vehicles... something his competition seems to have trouble with.

damn, that earns my vote right there."

Author: RICKAMAVEN Date: 05/31/2004 04:18 AM
"grond

just a minute. does owning a car qualify someone to be a president?"

Rick,

If you understood my subtleties, you failed to acknowledge my point. Your original response would indicate that you thought I was basing my opinion for whom I would vote on motor vehicle ownership. As a good liberal, you've again shown how to handle these issues:
1) Point out that the response is stupid (I'm voting for George W. because he owns a motor vehicle) so that you don't have to address the core issue of your candidate's inability to maintain a cohesive platform due to his constant change in stances on major issues.
2) Remark that you full well understood my subtleties but again refuse to address the substance of my reason.

Either you didn't understand and missed my subtle insinuation or you did understand and you sought to make me look stupid without addressing the issue.

Which is it?????

grond Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
P. S.
I'm not stupid and neither or you.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
grond

perhaps this will help

CAREFUL! READING SKILLS REQUIRED
Robby Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
I think grond was referring to "Mr. Kerry" addressing constituents and saying how "he drives an SUV, and he drives a truck, and he drives this, and he drives that". Then when addressing a crowd of environmentalists he said he didn't own any gas guzzlers... (I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point). Then when "confronted" with this clear discrepancy, he "rationalized" by saying "he" did not own these vehicles, but rather, "his wife" owned them... Does this sound like bull$hit to you? Smells like it? Looks like it? Feels like it? Tastes like it?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Robby

sounds like BS to me also.
JonR Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-19-2002
Posts: 9,740
Yo Rick:

What Robby said is TRUE !

Sad but TRUE !

JonR
pabloescabar Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
I still think Robby is one of the smartest people on the boards,


tax money back

speaks his mind, at least whats left.

not afraid to take out the very bad peoples, thems the ones that are going to continue to kill the good peoples.

GOD BLESS AMERICA !

we still love you Rick, cuz eye's supposed too?
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
pabloescabar

as long as you espect me in the orning
dbguru Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Speaking of gas guzzling.... OK so Kerry drives an SUV not too cool in my book, I'll admit that.

But in case you forgot, last year Bush gave major tax breaks to tens of thousands of companies to buy SUVs over more fuel efficient vehicles for corporate needs.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-01-20-suvs_x.htm

Guess I'll stick with the lesser of two evils on this one...
pabloescabar Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 02-25-2005
Posts: 30,183
hey Rick, you know dat...
usahog Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
db and you see a problem with this Tax Break?? Why because you do not own a business?? this works also for the small business owner also and the
GAS Break ;0)~~~
soon I will be landing me a SUV.. I LIKE Supporting the Economy and getting a break doing so...

thinkaboutit!!!!

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog

db and me, the rickamaven?
bloody spaniard Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
I own a business and this tax "break" is GARBAGE!!!
People who don't run businesses are usually the ones touting the great tax breaks under dubya.

BTW Rick, didn't you own your own business at one time?
I wonder how your entrepreneurial son feels about the wonderful economy under dubya.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
bloody spaniard

i haven't talked to bradley this morning, but as of last night i was majority hp;der in the partnership.
usahog Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Huh Rick?

Blood thanks for the inside Info.. I really wanted to stick to my FORD Pick-up Truck anyways hauls more...

Hog
bloody spaniard Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
^My cpa thinks you should get a 40' U-haul. LOL
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog

sorry i typed it wrong in answer to blood's

"BTW Rick, didn't you own your own business at one time?
I wonder how your entrepreneurial son feels about the wonderful economy under dubya."

i should have typed "i still owned the business as of last night, unless bradley bought me out when i wasn't paying attention."
Robby Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
"Speaking of gas guzzling.... OK so Kerry drives an SUV not too cool in my book, I'll admit that."

What types of vehicles should we be "allowed" to purchase heir commandant? You have zee papers for zat vehicle? Yes? You remind me of Cartman dressed as Hitler marching in the streets more and more each passing day...
bassdude Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
db - the Bush administarion mandated an increase in SUV MPG - Detroit is not too happy about it as discussed on 60 minutes the other night.
bassdude Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
db - the Bush administarion mandated an increase in SUV MPG - Detroit is not too happy about it as discussed on 60 minutes the other night.
dbguru Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
Just wanted to respond.. to USA HOG..

Yeah I do see a big problem with this tax break. Obviously we disagree but the bottom line is that it encourages purchases of vehicles that are much bigger than most of us need. Now Hog maybe you need a big truck or SUV to do the work you do, and if that's so then so be it, you shouldn't be denied the tool to do your vocation or business.. But do you really deserve a special tax break because of that. I know you may like it, but really why do you deserve this special treatment.

The people who say SUV purchases help the US economy I'm not so sure. I see a lot more Japanese and German SUVs on the road these days. Does inflating our energy dependence and burning hydrocarbons at rates double what regular cars and smaller trucks do really help the economy in the long run?

I have friends who are telephone executives given big SUVs for company work that requires nothing more than a nice fuel efficient sedan. There are so many of these types of situations that are encouraged by the tax break you support.

Does this really help the US economy. Perhaps the US auto industry benefits a bit but so do the oil companies and the Prince Bandar's relatives. That's the main reason the tax break exists.

I'm really cooncerned about our energy dependencies and want leadership that is going to introduce policies to defeat this dependency as much as possible. I'm tired of promoting situations that cause our money and now our blood as well to hemmorage into the Arab world just because they're lucky to have settled their civilization on top of a pool of oil.

Bush goes in the opposite direction of energy independence. So does this tax break.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Providing a Cleaner and More Secure Energy Future through Hydrogen Fuel Technology: The President announced that the Department of Energy has selected partners through a competitive process to fund new hydrogen research projects totaling $350 million ($575 million with private cost share) to overcome obstacles to a hydrogen economy. This represents nearly one-third of the President's $1.2 billion commitment in research funding to bring hydrogen and fuel cell technology from the laboratory to the showroom. The projects will include 28 awards to academia, industry, and national laboratories. The new hydrogen projects address four key areas:

Creating effective hydrogen storage: Current hydrogen storage systems are inadequate for use in the wide range of vehicles that consumers demand. Exploratory research and development is needed to overcome the grand challenge for hydrogen storage: to store the amount of hydrogen required for a conventional driving range (more than 300 miles), within the vehicular constraints of weight, volume, efficiency, safety, and cost. The Department of Energy is working to develop three primary options (chemical hydrides, metal hydrides, and carbon materials) in addition to 15 individual projects to explore new materials for hydrogen storage. Over 45 organizations will be involved, including DOE national laboratories, universities, research institutes, and industry.

Conducting limited hydrogen vehicle and infrastructure "learning demonstrations": To complement laboratory research, automakers and energy companies need to work together to develop integrated technology solutions for a national infrastructure. Eight automakers and six energy companies (under five major awards) will work together with their teams under this project to demonstrate integrated and complete system solutions operating in real world environments. Government and industry are providing matching funds. Teams also include utilities, universities, and small businesses. These demonstrations will provide important data on fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen-refueling infrastructure performance, cost, and durability and allow refocusing of research priorities as progress is made.

Developing affordable and durable hydrogen fuel cells: Currently, fuel cells and associated systems are as much as ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. New cost-shared projects will be formed with five businesses to develop fuel cells for consumer electronic devices, and auxiliary power and off-road applications.

Developing a hydrogen education campaign: In direct response to the National Energy Policy, a hydrogen education effort will aim to build the next generation workforce, engage students in science and technology, and overcome the public education and acceptance barriers to achieving the hydrogen economy. Middle school and high school curricula and teacher training will be developed. These projects will complement current education efforts for public and safety officials at all levels.

For too long, environmental policy in America has been dominated by a sterile debate between those who believe that pollution is the price of progress, and those who believe that we must limit and scale back our progress. The President believes that progress, innovation, and technology can help America leapfrog beyond these false choices - and meet the energy needs of a growing economy in environmentally responsible ways.

President Bush's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative

In his 2003 State of the Union address, the President committed $1.2 billion over five years to accelerate research and development of hydrogen fuel cell and infrastructure technologies, including $720 million in new funding. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative aims to help reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells that power cars, trucks, homes, and businesses that emit no pollution or greenhouse gases.

Through partnerships with the private sector, the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative will make it practical and cost-effective for large numbers of Americans to choose to use clean, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020 - so the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by fuel cells. This will dramatically improve America's energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil, and help clean our air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The President's proposal has received broad, bipartisan support in Congress.

The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative complements the President's existing FreedomCAR partnership, which is developing technologies needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles, along with other advanced vehicle technologies. In total, President Bush has proposed $1.7 billion over five years for the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives.

Budget

The President's FY 2005 budget proposes $228 million for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, a $69 million increase (43%) over the FY 2004 budget.

The FY 05 request includes $29 million for basic science within the DOE's Office of Science and $18 million for safety, codes, and standards activities - consistent with the program's needs and the recently released peer review report by the National Research Council.

The FY 05 budget request also includes an increasing emphasis on exploratory research for hydrogen production, storage, and fuel cell technologies and continued technology validation.

A mix of diverse energy feedstocks to produce hydrogen is needed to gradually make the transition to a secure, affordable, and environmentally safe hydrogen energy system; these include renewables, nuclear, and natural gas and coal with carbon management strategies.

Fuel Cell Technology

Fuel cells are a proven technology: America's astronauts have used fuel cells to generate electricity since the 1960s, but more work is needed to make them cost-effective for use in cars, trucks, homes, or businesses. Additional research and development is needed to spur rapid commercialization of these technologies so they can provide clean, domestically produced energy for transportation and other uses.

The President's initiatives seek to help the private sector overcome key technical and cost barriers for fuel cells:

Lowering the cost of hydrogen: Hydrogen is four times as expensive to produce as gasoline (when produced from its most affordable source, natural gas). The hydrogen fuel initiative seeks to lower that cost enough to make fuel cell cars cost-competitive with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles by 2015; and to advance the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and even coal.
Creating effective hydrogen storage: Current hydrogen storage systems are inadequate for use in the wide range of vehicles that consumers demand. New technology is needed.

Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cell-based propulsion is now as much as ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The FreedomCAR initiative is working to reduce that cost to affordable levels.

America's dependence on foreign oil is increasing:

America imports more than 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 70 percent by 2025.

Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline, and they are the main reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for transportation. Fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Hydrogen fuel will help reduce America's dependence on energy imports:

Through the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives, the Federal Government, automakers and energy companies will work together to overcome the technological and financial barriers to the successful development of commercially viable, emissions-free fuel cell vehicles that require no foreign oil.
Hydrogen is domestically available in abundant quantities as a component of natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.

The Department of Energy estimates that the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives may help reduce our demand for petroleum by over 11 million barrels per day by 2040 - approximately the amount of oil America imports today.

Fuel cells will improve air quality and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

Vehicles are a significant source of air pollution in America. Hydrogen fuel cells create electricity to power cars without any tailpipe pollution. The hydrogen fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives may reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions from transportation alone by more than 500 million metric tons of carbon equivalent each year by 2040. Additional emissions reductions could be achieved by using fuel cells in applications such as generating electricity for residential or commercial uses.
Hydrogen is the key to a cleaner energy future:

It has the highest energy content per unit of weight of any known fuel. When burned in an engine, hydrogen can produce effectively zero emissions; when powering a fuel cell, its only waste is water. Hydrogen can be produced from abundant domestic resources including natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water. Combined with other technologies such as carbon capture and storage, renewable energy, and fusion energy, fuel cells could help make an emissions-free energy future possible.

This is from the Presiden't webpage...I guess the democrats have a DIFFERENT slant on factual evidence!
dbguru Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 03-06-2002
Posts: 1,300
OK DMV granted Bush has given lip service to the energy independence thing.. but honestly do you really think he would do anything necessary and signiificant that would divert any control of power and energy away from the oil companies and the Saudi royal family?

I guess if Bush wasn't so much controlled by the wishes of the oil companies and the Saudis, I would be a lot more encouraged be the content of your posts. But the efforts proposed are token in nature and on project time lines that aren't really aggressive at all. I'm glad you made the posts anyway. My compliments.
DB
DrMaddVibe Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,498
Did the facts bother you so much that you think for a second that GW is "controlled" by OPEC? This President has tried to get us off of the foreign oil tit! Did you READ the article before you flippantly posted your response?

What's Kerry's "plan"? What has he done in the senate?
Robby Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Heir DB? I hear the Green's abandoned Nader and are backing Bush thanks in large part to his support of energy independence and support of alternate technologies like Hydrogen. What about Kerry's support of dumping nuclear waste in the Artic wildlife refuges? How can that be good for the economy? Nuclear waste spoiling our national wilderness? The man’s crazy!

P.S., I drive a Silverado, 4WD, Z71. Err, umm, I mean… “my family owns that truck”.
tailgater Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
This is a long thread and I don't have time to read them all, so if I've duplicated a response please forgive me:
I will vote for President Bush because I ask myself these questions:
1. Who is less likely to Raise my taxes?
2. Who is more likely to fight terrorism with the vigor it deserves?
3. Who do I trust more?

Then I ask some more questions:
1. Who would Osama vote for?
2. Who would Sadam have voted for?
3. Who would France and Spain vote for?


When that's all said and done, I do a gut check. Kerry is too indecisive to be President. His status as a career absentee Senator has proved nothing of his abilities to do anything other than marry into money.

He's an embarrassment with no moral fiber in his botoxed body.
But unfortunately, the democrats don't look for substance, they look for style. And Kerry does score points over GWB for Style.
So I'm afraid it will be a close race, but only due to the liberal penchant for looking no further than skin deep.

Charlie Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Joe

Well put and I might as well just agree! We are far better off with GWB than we could ever be with Kerry!

Charlie
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
tailgater

"no moral fiber in his botoxed body"

botoxed body? is it always necessary for members of your ilk to use what you percieve to be an insulting adjective when describing someone whose politics you disagree with?

can't you just make your point and sit down. don't you realize the childish foolishness of doing that.

you were doing so well up to that point, that even though i disagree, i thought your points were well thought out, and then you desroy your viewpoint with a dumb remark.
428cj Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
No, it's not always necessary. I'll say it, I just plain don't like or trust Kerry.

There, no name calling. Yet...
Charlie Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
Why should anyone trust Kerry? He looks like he could be one of the leading characters on Deadwood....sorry, Rick, but I do not care what you think about our discriptions!

Charlie
Robby Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 10-30-2002
Posts: 5,067
Rick, you made his point for him! With an exclaimation point at the end!!

"you were doing so well up to that point, that even though i disagree, i thought your points were well thought out, and then you desroy your viewpoint with a dumb remark."

As he was saying, style over substance... That's what turns libs on and you just proved it!
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Charlie

"sorry, Rick, but I do not care what you think about our discriptions!"

and you shouldn't.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Robby

i'm afraid you missed my confession. i have renounced liberalism.

i have converted to become a "rachmones conservative" and i stand by my conservativism as a newly born again christian stand by his or her enlightenment.
usahog Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Db I will respond with your post.. it will not be short..

Rick, How with you claiming to be athist can even know the demenior of a Born Again Christian? something you read on the Internet?

BY The WAY... out of Two.. Bush is the Better...

Kerry Blows Chuncks!!!!!

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
usahog

i never said i was an athiest. i said i had no interst in the idea af a god. big difference. athiests say there is no god. i say i dob't care one way or the other. if push comes to show i will say the idea of a god, in my mind, is a silly arrogance.

"the demenior of a Born Again Christian" is not something that can be learned on the net. it requires first hand talking to those who are born again, something that comes up frequently in my life.

there are a lot of born again christians i meet and learn from. when i meet someone, like my daughtr in law, i will sometimes challange their beliefs, if i think they can handle it and no where near the animosity i have towards little w. i have nothing against someone who is a "believer."

the born again christians always leave the conversation more secure in their convictions because i do not insult their beliefs and i never try to dissuade them from their beliefs.

when my daughter in law said she had married my son for all eternity, i knew she was mistaken, because the belief is when you reach heaven, you are no longer married, leaving the surviving spouse to remarry, but i never mentioned that.

her question was "how can ross and i be married for eternity if he doesn't believe in heaven."

my answer was "one of you will be surprised."

i am very interested in a lot of things and religeon is one of those broad questions of man from the beginning. i'm not looking for an answer, because i am satisfied with the one i foud, but i am always interested in peoples point of views regarding the "big issues".

and look how little w has corrupted his suppossed beliefs. he is asking churches to form groups to cheer him, use church property and their list of members, to support him, which is forbidden by law as are all non profit entity from doing.

he either doesn't know the law, and why should he, he doesn't know squat about most things, or he feels he is above the law, which he has shown, so far, to be the case.

let me ask you a few questions.

why do christians get to decide when life begins as oppossed to physicians who more understand the complexities of the human body.

why do christians favor capital punnishment in such great numbers. i was under the impression it is god who gives life and takes it.

why do people pray to be cured of a sickness that has been given to them by an almighty god that allowed them to get sick in the first place. at least in the old days, people killed an animal or a human as a sacrifice to appease the gods.

does god need verification that people love and respect him? does he really need a burnt dead goat?

if memory serves me, paul said go and spread the word.
why has it always been necessary to murder people that don't believe in your god, even though they have one of their own that they are satisfied with.

how about i build an army of believers of the god of water, and set out to kill people who disrespect my god by drinking him.

how about my god believes life begins at puberty and so anyone who has not reached puberty are not alive, let's kill the one's we don't like. those of course would be the cute prepubescent girls that refuse to have sex with me and my army.

just a little food for thought, which i'm sure you can deal with.

any of you nincompoops that can't understand the questions, please go to the picture post and admire the women in bikini's. find your comfort level where you can.



usahog Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rick,

I think You Been Born Again ;0)

Congrats Bro!!!!
Hog
usahog Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Ohh and BTW God Bless!!!

Hog
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>