IQ and politics

[Toro]

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

hilarious and yet so sad

[seaman]

Great link. Putting aside allegations that IQ is really a measure of education and not intelligence (two very different things), its still a striking chart.

While most people will take this as proof that Bush was the wrong choice (high IQ states supported Kerry), I take a different position: If the majority of Americans are less educated, why SHOULDN'T they get to choose the President?

Don't forget, the notion of the educated minority running the country for the great unwashed borders on facism, feudalism, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that - I think a little benevolent dictatorship might be good for the country actually.

[Jamie Michelle]

I LOVE IT!!!

thuggish, i love it..hey guess where the churches and religion are strong? yup, the retard states;) but we knew that:)

oh, and guess where the hate, intolerance, xenophobia is? yup, the red retard states...fuck politically correct BS, lets be honest here...

most people who believe and are heavy jesus freaks, the nascar types, are fuckin hate filled, gay bashing morons...in 2004 if u believe in the virgin birth but not evolution u are a FUCKING IDIOT!!!

peace and love;)

Evolution exists, it's just not Darwinian evolution. Nor is it to say that simply because it exists that is has ever occured in our world.

If simple chance (i.e., blind and dead forces) dictated evolution, then it would always and forever be "one step forward, one step back," so to speak. There's no getting around this merely by acting on blind and dead forces. In short, evolution is infinitely improbable acting on just blind and dead forces, even given and infinite amount of matter and time.

The solution which solves this problem is that evolution is *required by the laws of physics.* In physics it is just as accurate to say that time "flows" backwards as it does "forwards." In short, the end determines the beginning just as much as the beginning determines the end (even within quantum physics, with the the multiverse as a whole).

So there is a point to evolution. In other words, "Not for nothing, folks," as they say. That point is God.

This is not to say that evolution is occuring in our world, since God could have used a finite amount of His infinite amount of computational resources to perfectly render our universe a split second ago, and we would never know it unless God wanted us to know. In short, our world could have been created as it is now a fraction of a second ago, and we would never know it unless God wanted us to know.

Rather it is to say that evolution is a fact of existence *in general.* This is to say, evolution guided by God, guiding universes back into Himself--or more accurately, creating worlds within worlds. As I explained this matter some time ago:

**
If [Prof. Frank] Tipler's Omega Point is a reality, and the known physical laws require that it is, then it is an almost perfect statistical certainty that we exist within it already: the difference between the finite populations that exist before the Omega Point verses the infinite populations that will exist after the Omega Point and inside of it--also the difference between the finite amount of proper time before the Omega Point verses the infinite amount of subjective time inside the Omega Point. Over time an infinite number of levels of implementation would be created, i.e., perfectly simulated Omega Points within perfectly simulated Omega Points. That is, Worlds within Worlds within Worlds, etc., ad infinitum. To invent a new term, we might call these Alpha-Omega Point simulations, i.e., perfectly simulating new universes from the beginning of their Big Bang singularity to their ending in a Big Crunch singularity wherein the final causal-boundary is another Omega Point. These new universes could eventually be populated, if so desired, with pre-existing consciousnesses which have voluntered to undergo a forgetting so that they may have the pleasure of re-experiencing life as a humanoid.

As a physicist, Tipler did not spend much time on this near statistical certainty implied by his Theory (i.e., that we already exist inside the Omega Point). The reason for this is, as a physicist, Tipler wants to keep his Theory a testable theory--but as Tipler well knows, there would be no way for us to test whether or not we already exist as a simulation within the Omega Point unless the Omega Point wanted us to know. Also, if we alreadly exist on a level of implementation inside the Omega Point then the Omega Point Theory would not necessarily be an empirically testable theory from our viewpoint, since the laws of physics, at least from our viewpoint, need not apply should the Omega Point choose to alter the course of events.

It should also be noted that the Omega Point has all the attributes which have been claimed for God. The Omega Point will be omnipresent, as it will be the totality of the universe; the Omega Point will be omniscient, as it will know everything which is possible to be known; the Omega Point will be omnipotent, as it will live for an infinite amount of subjective time, will be able to perfectly render any environment or experience which is not logically contradictory (such as a "square-circle," a stone so large that even It could not move it, or 2+2=5, etc.), and indeed, will be able to resurrect us (assuming we don't exist in the Omega Point already). ( http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html .)
**


To find out what some of the world's foremost physicists--including the world's leading quantum physicist and inventor of the quantum computer--have discovered about God, please see:

"Demystifying God":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/learngod.html

And to understand why acceptence of the known laws of physics requires acceptence of the existence of God, please see:

"Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point (i.e., the Physicists' Technical Term for God)":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/physicsgod.html

See also:

"Theology is Now a Branch of Physics":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/tiplerreview.html

To understand what all this means for us here and now--and how it relates to religions--please see:

"Biblical Scripture which Gives Evidence of Tipler's Omega Point Theory":

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/bibleomega.html

And definitely see also:

Transhumanity Interview with Frank J. Tipler, November 2, 2002:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021124063944/http://transhumanism.com/2002/tipler0201.shtml

Read the below excellent and very informative article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

"The Omega Point and Christianity" by Frank Tipler, Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2, April 2003, pp.14-23:

http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/tipler.htm

For the version in German, see below:

Frank J. Tipler, Het Punt Omega en het christendom, Gamma, Jrg. 10, Nr. 2, April 2003, pp.14-23.

http://home.worldonline.nl/~sttdc/jrg10_nr2_p1423.htm


See also Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (i.e., the CTMU, which is on the logical necessity of God's existence), which compliments Prof. Frank Tipler's work quite well (Prof. Tipler and Chris Langan are fellows of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design [ISCID] along with the famous Intelligent Design scientists Michael J. Behe and William A. Dembski, and on Chris Langan's website he lists Frank Tipler's work as supporting his CTMU). Chris Langan is known as the smartest man in America, with an IQ of 195.

Probably the best way to be introduced to the CTMU is by reading the "ISCID Live Moderated Chat: Christopher Langan":

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan-chat.php

Here is Christopher Langan's ISCID page:

http://www.iscid.org/christopherlangan.php

See the ABC News transcript of the 20/20 program done on Chris Langan:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/transcripts/2020_991209_iq_trans.html

Chris was also profiled in Popular Science Magazine discussing his theory of reality:

http://www.megasociety.net/PopularScience/PopSciInt.pdf

Here is Chris Langan's ISCID paper, "The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory":

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/2-3/langan_ctmu.php

And below is Chris Langan's own website about his CTMU:

http://www.ctmu.org

[Toro]

Evolution exists, it's just not Darwinian evolution.

So there is a point to evolution. In other words, "Not for nothing, folks," as they say. That point is God.

This is not to say that evolution is occuring in our world, since God could have used a finite amount of His infinite amount of computational resources ...

... guiding universes back into Himself--or more accurately, creating worlds within worlds. As I explained this matter some time ago:


Listen...first of all, the time you spent concocting that friggin diatribe and your references to God as 'He' and 'Himself' identify you as a Jesus freak. Or at least a Christian. So you are biased.

And second - in trying to prove how smart you are, you are actually accomplishing the opposite. By writing all that crap that's so hard to get through, you are getting through to a very narrow audience. So while you may know a bunch of big fancy words, your knowledge of effective communication is akin to that of a 3rd grader.

Take that, Sister Christian. I'm with the dude that said 'red retards'.

[Jamie Michelle]

Evolution exists, it's just not Darwinian evolution.

So there is a point to evolution. In other words, "Not for nothing, folks," as they say. That point is God.

This is not to say that evolution is occuring in our world, since God could have used a finite amount of His infinite amount of computational resources ...

... guiding universes back into Himself--or more accurately, creating worlds within worlds. As I explained this matter some time ago:


Listen...first of all, the time you spent concocting that friggin diatribe and your references to God as 'He' and 'Himself' identify you as a Jesus freak. Or at least a Christian. So you are biased.

And second - in trying to prove how smart you are, you are actually accomplishing the opposite. By writing all that crap that's so hard to get through, you are getting through to a very narrow audience. So while you may know a bunch of big fancy words, your knowledge of effective communication is akin to that of a 3rd grader.

Take that, Sister Christian. I'm with the dude that said 'red retards'.

None of your above complaints are relevant to the truth or falsity of my arguments.

Secondly, I am a Christian and a "Jesus freak," so to speak. I used to be a hardcore atheist, until discovered that that position was an untenable one, at which time I had no honest choice but to aknowledge God's existence. As far as bias goes, with your above little childish temper-tantrum you hardly seem to be a model of non-bias in that regard. And I fail to see what bias or non-bias has to do with the truth or falsity of an argument--the truth of an argument stands or falls on its own merit, regardless of who stated it.

As far as me referring to God as a "He," there exist no gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun within the common English language, so I went with the most common convention in this case. Although obviously God is transgendered, and is equally male and female and all sexes in between and to the sides.

[Jamie Michelle]

when u write a post and not cut and paste a lengthy silly piece, then ill read it, and my sincere apolog. if u wrote that...it just seemed very impersonal...


Yes, all of it is my own writings.



lets cut to the chase, albert einstein the smartest guy in recent history was an atheist, if he didnt buy the BS, i dont...he said it best (despite tons of people trying to take his statement about god and dice out of context):


Einstein wasn't the smartest guy in recent history. It turns out that Einstein stole "his" famous E=mc^2 equation from an Itallian physicist who published the equation earlier. Also, Einstein was a socialist, so simply because he may have been smart in one department (although even this is debatable, as apparently his wife helped him with a lot of his work) doesn't necessarily make one smart in other departments.

Also, physics had to advance before the Omega Point Theory could be developed. For a specific example, the Bekenstein Bound had yet to be formulated and proved in Einstein's day, of which is a vital part of the physical proof of the Omega Point (see M. Schiffer and J. D. Bekenstein, "Proof of the Quantum Bound on Specific Entropy for Free Fields," Physical Review D39, 1109-1115 [1989]).



Einstien spent his whole life trying to prove that there are LAWS to this universe, things that must occur constantly without deviation...if there was a god who could be prayed to to reverse or disregard these laws, it goes against the very grain and concept of these laws..thus there can be no personal god, only science...

its not a coincidence that religion exists most heavily in areas with little education and hate...its the opiate of the masses and something for poor suckers to hang their hat on...

The ruling elite have intentionally distorted religion for their own gain and power. The cause isn't the existence of religion, but the existence of government.

[speck]

I find it kinda funny that with your high IQ(Do I presume too much?) you were unable to locate the link on the very same page that fairly effectively debunks the result of the study you cite.

People who call others idiots for political views without explaining why tend not to be very bright.

For instance, I can effectively call someone an idiot if they state something like "all the Bush tax cuts go to the wealthy" because sufficient factual evidence exists to prove that statement false. Furthermore, most of that evidence is readily available to people(when they do their federal income taxes each year) and therefore people ought to know better than to make a statement of that nature.

However, I cannot effectively call someone an idiot if they make a statement such as "I do not believe that god exists" or " I believe that war is wrong". The reason that I cannot call that person an idiot is that there is significant evidence that supports both sides of these arguments. I can DEBATE a person on these ideas, and perhaps persuade them to my side of the argument. But I have no inclination to assault them verbally for holding views that might be opposite mine.

[GroobySteven]

Are you saying that because Einstein believed in Socialism, that doesn't make him smart?
What do you base that theory on?
seanchai

[Jamie Michelle]

The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats are ignorant (I won't say "idiots," as some others here have done, as that word seems to speak towards inate intelligence, whereas ignorance simply denotes lack of knowledge).

Kerry is a cousin of Bush, and they are both members in the Brotherhood of Death (a.k.a. the Order of Skull & Bones). Their agendas are the same, i.e., the establishment of their self-termed New World Order.

A vote for Kerry was a vote for Bush, and vice versa. Whichever one wins, they both win.

But under U.S. law, George Bush, Jr. qualifies for execution for mass-murderous high treason. And again, George Bush, Jr., as with all Presidents, is just a puppet of the globalist elite--but even so, he is still responsible for his own intentional complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Certain segments of the White House were certainly intentionally complicit in the U.S. government-staged 9/11 PsyOp. Bush, Jr. certainly was. The below is merely some of the evidence which proves this.

########################################

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary: The Dog That Did Not Bark

THE VIDEO THAT PROVES 9/11 WAS NOT A SURPRISE

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html

########################################

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1du1d09tglgjhp92a5rghq8op0sup9sg9i%404 ax.com

From: James Redford <jrredford@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.liber tarian
Subject: Re: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:56:11 GMT

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:12:38 -0700, "~z~" <flyzee@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>It sounds like the CIA and ISI employ terrorist attacks to mold public
>opinion--wonder how many go all the way back to the WH?

In the case of the 9/11 attacks the intentional complicity certainly goes all the way up to Bush, Jr. Bush obviously knew that he was in no danger during the photo op at Booker Elementary School, even though he knew that the first jet crash into the WTC was an intentional attack and had been told that before the photo op even began [see Note A below], i.e., long before Andy Card wispered in his ear supposedly concerning the second jet crash into the WTC. Keep in mind that this photo op was widely publicized in the news, so if the attacks had been by terrorists not under the control of the U.S. government then Bush would have been putting himself and a whole bunch of elementary school-children in mortal danger by staying there. But of course, he knew that he was never in any danger by staying there.

As WhatReallyHappened.com recently commented:

*
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/2004_06.html

Fahrenheit 9/11 turns up the heat http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1086991811111&call_pageid=968867495754
Now that George W. Bush is disappointed to learn that the rah-rah Ronald Reagan funeral coverage won't be extended until the November election -- or the capture of Osama bin Laden, whichever comes first -- it is time to look back at his least Reaganesque moment...If you want to see the video of that moment, you have to go to alternative Web sites, or see Moore's film.

If you cannot wait for Moor's film, that video fo Bush just sitting there while the US is under attack is HERE. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html But contrary to Antonia's view, this video reveals more than just an immobile Bush. After Andy Card informs Bush of that second plane impact, Andy just turns and leaves, PROVING THAT ANDY CARD ALREADY KNEW BUSH WAS NOT GOING TO SAY OR DO ANYTHING AT THAT MOMENT. - M. R.
*

That is, Andy Card, after wispering in Bush's ear about the second jet crash into the WTC (as we're told), doesn't even wait to see if Bush was going to say anything back to him. And of course, Bush doesn't say or do anything concerning the attacks, but simply continues on with the photo op. So the whole wispering in the ear thing was scripted beforehand (meaning they knew a second strike on the WTC was coming).

In addition, we have Bush, Jr.'s Presidential administration's own official statements regarding how helpful "a new Pearl Harbor" type of event would be for their agenda.

Below is the relevant excerpt from the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September 2000 ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ):

Page 51 (or 63 in the PDF browser):

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

And they got their "new Pearl Harbor" twelve months later. How very fortunate for them and their globe-dominating "Project."

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz


Also, before the 9/11 attacks, as disclosed in the official FBI document numbered 199I-WF-213589 and which came from the FBI's Washington field office--of which was originally an order by former President Clinton and subsequently re-ordered by President George Bush, Jr.--the FBI was ordered to back-off of their investigations into the bin Laden family, the royal House of Saud, and suspected terrorist organizations with links to Osama bin Laden:

"Called Off the Trail?--FBI Agents Probing Terror Links Say They Were Told, 'Let Sleeping Dogs Lie,'" Brian Ross and Vic Walter, ABCNEWS, December 19, 2002 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/FBI_whistleblowers021219.html

"Has someone been sitting on the FBI?," Greg Palast, BBC Newsnight, November 6, 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

"FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated--Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11," Greg Palast and David Pallister, The Guardian, November 7, 2001 http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,589173,00.html

"Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail," Rashmee Z. Ahmed, Times News Network, November 07, 2001 http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1030259305
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?art_id=1030259305

"US agents told: Back off bin Ladens," Sydney Morning Herald, November 7, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011109180353/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0111/07/world/world100.html

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Agence France-Presse (AFP), November 7, 2001
http://web.archive.org/web/20011108002028/http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/071101/dlame43.asp

"US agents told to back off bin Ladens," Ananova, November 7, 2001 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_443114.html

"US agents were told to 'back off Bin Ladens'," Independent Online, November 7, 2001 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1005113520874B221


Of course, there's even more than that. See the below for more on this:

From: James Redford <jrredford@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternativ e,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Message-ID: ttj0d09ofjefrfgapi44ifpgu6lf2vi1h7@4ax.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ttj0d09ofjefrfgapi44ifpgu6lf2vi1h7%404 ax.com

[Cut of the rest of the post.]

########################################

Note A to the above:

---

George Bush Jr.'s response illustrated a similar indifference. The New York Press continues to note that meanwhile, in Florida, "just as President Bush was about to leave his hotel he was told about the attack on the first WTC tower. He was asked by a reporter if he knew what was going on in New York." ABC News has confirmed this. John Cochran, who was covering the President's trip, informed Peter Jennings on ABC TV:

"He [the President] got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, whisper into his ear. The reporter said to the president, 'Do you know what's going on in New York?' He said he did, and he said he will have something about it [i.e. a statement] later."[353]

As the Press reports, "He said he did, and then went to an elementary school in Sarasota to read to children."[354] Another statement from Vice-President Cheney provides further insight into this: "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was ..." Cheney never finished his sentence, but it is obvious that he had meant to say something along the lines of "hit."[355]

---

Notes to the above:

309. Szamuely, George, 'Nothing Urgent,' New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2, www.nypress.com/15/2/taki/bunker.cfm
353. Special Report, 'Planes Crash into World Trade Center,' ABC News, 11 September 2001, 8:53 AM ET.
354. Szamuely, George, 'Nothing Urgent,' op. cit.
355. NBC, 'Meet the Press,' 16 September 2001.

---

The above is an excerpt from page 166 of the below book:

The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001 by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, foreword and afterword by John Leonard (Tree of Life Publications; June 2002), ISBN: 0-930852-40-0 (0930852400), 400 pages:

http://www.williambowles.info/911/warfre-book.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/nafeez-mosaddeq-ahmed-the-war-on-freedom-warfre-book.pdf

########################################

Those who control the U.S. government didn't just know in advance and intentionally let the 9/11 attacks happen as a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp in order to obtain more power and control--they funded, shepherded, trained and protected the terrorists every step of the way. They didn't just intentionally let it happen: they made it happen.

The below post by me contains the November 10, 2003 article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D., which is a very good, short introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I append my own additional end-notes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells' article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.

From: James Redford <jrredford@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternativ e,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ttj0d09ofjefrfgapi44ifpgu6lf2vi1h7%404 ax.com

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad-or-another-northwoods.html

See also the below book which are full of hardcore documentation on the U.S. government-staged 9/11 PsyOp:

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by Prof. David Ray Griffin, foreword by Prof. Richard Falk (Olive Branch Press [an imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.]; March 2004), ISBN: 1-56656-552-9 (1566565529), 256 pages:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/david-ray-griffin-the-new-pearl-harbor.html

Or, to find it elswhere online, see the below Google link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22followed+by+electrifying+revelations%2 2&num=100&filter=0

[Jamie Michelle]

Are you saying that because Einstein believed in Socialism, that doesn't make him smart?
What do you base that theory on?
seanchai

It certainly means that he wasn't smart on the subject of politics and economics, unless I am to believe that he actually knew that socialism was a total scam and power-grab and that its economics were unworkable, but that he promoted it for nefarious reasons. What I base this on is economics, as well as political theory, and political history.

[Jamie Michelle]

thank u for effectively ending anything anyone cares about...u come across like the retarded jesus freak on broadway in midtown manhattan...who the fuck has the patience to read through ur shit and have the memory to disagree on it all...

ur obviousely pretty smart, and i surmise u got tons of issues...thats why u need god, its illogical, its a need u have, its like AAA, while everyone has it, no one calls them untill they are at the side of the road with smoke coming out from under the hood..the people who find god, ironically, are fucked up people who will turn to anything for guidance, etc..

why do so many fuckin people need direction and all that shit religion implies it lends? live, have fun, soon we are all worm food, no hell, ne heavan, no bullshit...

cmon grow up...ur religion is someone elses superstition...just like thor and zeus and atlas and them all are silly to u, so is jesus to them, ur not right, theyre not right, the only one who can be right is ME!!! lol...since they all cant be right, they all have to be wrong;)

dont play the religious pr, u know that u believe that jews and muslims, etc will go to hell, since they dont accept this silly christ thing (simplistic and idiotic, yeah i believe in him, i go to VIP lol) and they believe ur going to hell, its a childish game, grow the fuck up...religion was started to explain what we dont understand..its a fuckin scam....and ur the fool....

imagine in ancient rome, the fool who tries to defend the gods, it would take on a very similar stance to urs on jesus...

hey, a caveman praying to a rock for luck is the SAME THING as someone admiring the pope in his robes and waving something with smoke, its just more elaberate costumes:) kisses

Like I said, I used to be a hardcore atheist, so much of your above statements on how I "need" to manufacture a belief in God are false even on their own terms. As well, none of your above statements are relevant to the truth or falsity of my arguments.

[GroobySteven]

You're as worthless to start an argument with as any fundamentalist.
seanchai

[Jamie Michelle]

You're as worthless to start an argument with as any fundamentalist.
seanchai

I presume you're referring to me. The reason you say that is because I have my facts together and know whereof I speak, whereas you do not. So obviously it would be pointless for you to bring your rubber-band shooter to my gun fight.

[Toro]

Are you saying that because Einstein believed in Socialism, that doesn't make him smart?
What do you base that theory on?
seanchai

It certainly means that he wasn't smart on the subject of politics and economics, unless I am to believe that he actually knew that socialism was a total scam and power-grab and that its economics were unworkable, but that he promoted it for nefarious reasons. What I base this on is economics, as well as political theory, and political history.

I know a bunch of Scandinavians who would totally disagree with you on the socialism thing. And China's closely related communist/capitalist regime seems to be the most successful in the world right now. You're a little too sheltered. There are a lot of people around the world who would say that WE'VE completely lost control. I love living la vida loca here, but they might be right.

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I'd bet anything that the people who believe that God is a crutch invented to help people cope with fear and the unknown are the ones who also ...
* oppose war and feel that religion and/or cultural divide is the cause for most of it
* oppose imperialism and geocentrism
* believe that humans are the inhabitants of this planet - not Americans or Muslims or atheists
* believe that if stem cell research could possibly save lives and cure maladies, who the fuck is a politician to stand in the way of that science?
* believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, who the fuck should be able to tell her 'no'?
* believe that - if we didn't have all our retarded religious and ideological differences - we could cure cancer, solve homeless and hunger problems, and explore space and medicine in ways that would benefit each and every single person on the face of this planet

And then there are those who believe in Heaven and Hell, God and Satan, shit like that. LOL. Well, call me a sinner.

[Jamie Michelle]

Are you saying that because Einstein believed in Socialism, that doesn't make him smart?
What do you base that theory on?
seanchai

It certainly means that he wasn't smart on the subject of politics and economics, unless I am to believe that he actually knew that socialism was a total scam and power-grab and that its economics were unworkable, but that he promoted it for nefarious reasons. What I base this on is economics, as well as political theory, and political history.

I know a bunch of Scandinavians who would totally disagree with you on the socialism thing. And China's closely related communist/capitalist regime seems to be the most successful in the world right now. You're a little too sheltered. There are a lot of people around the world who would say that WE'VE completely lost control. I love living la vida loca here, but they might be right.

I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I'd bet anything that the people who believe that God is a crutch invented to help people cope with fear and the unknown are the ones who also ...
* oppose war and feel that religion and/or cultural divide is the cause for most of it
* oppose imperialism and geocentrism
* believe that humans are the inhabitants of this planet - not Americans or Muslims or atheists
* believe that if stem cell research could possibly save lives and cure maladies, who the fuck is a politician to stand in the way of that science?
* believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, who the fuck should be able to tell her 'no'?
* believe that - if we didn't have all our retarded religious and ideological differences - we could cure cancer, solve homeless and hunger problems, and explore space and medicine in ways that would benefit each and every single person on the face of this planet

And then there are those who believe in Heaven and Hell, God and Satan, shit like that. LOL. Well, call me a sinner.

Scandinavia is not full socialism, and also it has a lot of very valuable natural resources, i.e., oil (think Dutch Royal Shell). I would condsider China "successful" in the sense that it's a successfully powerful despotism which crushes the freedoms of its people, but unless you are one of the privileged few in China then the living conditions are far below that of the U.S. (which itself is hardly a free country).

As far as to whether or not you are a sinner:

When Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6), He was there being as literal as it is possible to be. In other words, "Jesus" is a synonym for _the Truth_--although also a real person that walked this earth. Jesus is the ultimate personification on this earth of the truth. I believe that there have existed many true Christians who haven't even heard of the name "Jesus."

What is the Way? Jesus told us what the Way is: in all things do on to others as you would have others do on to you (Matt. 5:17,18; 7:12; Luke 6:31). An equivalent formulation of this is love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 19:19; 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28 ). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus's Commandment that we love one another as He has loved us (John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21). Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle--even with adultry starting in the heart: for example, just as you would not like it if every time a good-looking man passsed by your woman she was thinking about how it would be to get with him (unless you agreed to an open relationship beforehand), so also you should give her the same respect as regards other women (or whatever gender).

Jesus said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive eternal life:

-------

Luke 10:25-28: And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."'

And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

-------

But the above two requirements actually logically reduces to only one requirement: to love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least of His brothren we do on to Him (Matt. 25:31-46). So if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.

What is the Truth? Jesus is the Truth: wherever you find truth there also you will find Jesus.

But, people may ask: what about the holocausts, genocides, and wars, etc., that have continuously plagued mankind--that's truth, i.e., they really happen, they exist, and they're real; is Jesus these things? And I would answer that those things certainly exist and that we need to come to terms with them if we are to ever overcome them--but: what is it that allowed these grim truths to be brought into existence in the first place? In short: lies, deceit, fraud, and willful ignorance--and all on a massive scale. It was only people's lack of belief in Jesus (Truth) in the first place which would inevitably lead to the above--without this departure from the truth happining first, the others could not have happened.

And so what's the most important truth which one could possibly grasp? The answer is: the Way. 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him." All other truth pales in comparision to this one principle. Love is fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13,14). This is the Perfect Law of Liberty and the Royal Law (James 1:25; 2:8-12). If one grasps nothing else other than this then one will have grasped enough. All the injustices and societal problems which so plagues mankind stem from people's failure to abide by this one principle.

And so Jesus is the Way and the Truth: if you abide in these things then you will have the Life (Luke 10:25-28 ).

But what if we don't; what if we may fail at some point, because we are human? Is all lost? As it is written:

Romans 3:23: [F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I don't think it's too controversial to say that any typical human who is at the comprehension level to understand the above verse has already violated the Golden Rule (of which _is_ sin), even if in just his own heart.

But to answer my above question: no, naught is lost, because if we confess the truth and ask God for forgiveness and believe that we have forgiveness then we will have forgiveness (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38,39; 26:18; Rom. 10:9). This is why belief in Jesus as an actual person sent by God can be so vital.

But what about John writing:

2 John 1:7: [M]any deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But what else did John himself write about this matttar?: 1 John 2:10: "He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him."

Jesus did come in the flesh, but what did Jesus have to say about Himself?: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6.)

In other words, Truth did come to the earth in the existential sense, and does exist on this earth, and can be known--as opposed to the moral relativism of Pontius Pilate (John 18:38 ).

Based upon my research into people's so-called "near-death experiences" (I don't really like this term, because most of the times when these experiences happen it is after a person undergoes clinical death and shows no vital signs, and so a more accurate term for these people would be "after-death experience"), this is a spiritual truism for the afterlife: birds of a feather flock together. That is, depending on where one's mind-set is at upon death, in the afterlife one will be associated with people of like mind-set. Hell is very real--Hell exists. But rather than a sharp either/or Heaven/Hell, it is probably more appropriate to think of the afterlife as many levels between the deepest, darkest pits of Hell and the most glorious basking in the presence of the love and light of God--i.e., as a continuum between these extremes (although the extremes themselves certainly exist [although I believe both are probably infinite in either direction], and one can be caught up in either depending on one's spiritual development). Suicides typically report a Purgatory-like existence upon death, because they cannot see the light of God. For more on that, see:

http://www.near-death.com

[Toro]

Scandinavia is not full socialism, and also it has a lot of very valuable natural resources, i.e., oil (think Dutch Royal Shell).

As far as to whether or not you are a sinner:

When Jesus said of Himself ...

If you are referring to Dutch Royal Shell of the Netherlands as Scandinavian, then I know some Dutch people who would be more pissed at you than the Scandinavians I referred to earlier. Like I said, sheltered. And if you are actually quoting Jesus, you're nutty.

[Jamie Michelle]

Scandinavia is not full socialism, and also it has a lot of very valuable natural resources, i.e., oil (think Dutch Royal Shell).

As far as to whether or not you are a sinner:

When Jesus said of Himself ...

If you are referring to Dutch Royal Shell of the Netherlands as Scandinavian, then I know some Dutch people who would be more pissed at you than the Scandinavians I referred to earlier. Like I said, sheltered. And if you are actually quoting Jesus, you're nutty.

So are you saying that Dutch Royal Shell doesn't have oil operations in Scandinavia? That was my point, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer for you.

[Toro]

So are you saying that Dutch Royal Shell doesn't have oil operations in Scandinavia? That was my point, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer for you.

Yeah. They also have a gas station or two in Canarsie.

So scratch my first first comment and I'll stick with the quoting Jesus/nutty piece.

[Jamie Michelle]

So are you saying that Dutch Royal Shell doesn't have oil operations in Scandinavia? That was my point, and I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer for you.

Yeah. They also have a gas station or two in Canarsie.

So scratch my first first comment and I'll stick with the quoting Jesus/nutty piece.

In other words you, in effect, admit that your position is without substance, since all you can come up with is an irrelevant and false ad hominem attack upon me.

[speck]

* oppose war and feel that religion and/or cultural divide is the cause for most of it

Lack of resources combined with a genetic/environment derived drive for power on the part of every world leader are the cause of war.

* oppose imperialism and geocentrism

In this modern era, there are people who favor imperialism? What nation engages in this behavior? None that I'm aware of.

Your counter argument will be that the U.S. is imperialist and Iraq is an example of that.

Do not use that counter argument without factual proof and rational argument.

Do not use conspiracy theories like the nut case in this thread. I don't believe in them. Nor do most real atheists.

* believe that humans are the inhabitants of this planet - not Americans or Muslims or atheists

You go tell that to Osama for me.

Do you not believe that there are humans who have an insanely strong drive for power? And that in that drive for power, inherently are amoungst the craftiest, if not most intelligent amoungst us? Or at least inherit and develop the skills necessary to obtain power? To control others?

This type of behavior is what has destroyed nations, and built them.

* believe that if stem cell research could possibly save lives and cure maladies, who the fuck is a politician to stand in the way of that science?

Well, if one accepts the notion that embreyo's are human life.......


* believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, who the fuck should be able to tell her 'no'?

Damm, I feel like killing a few people today. Who the f--- is some politician to tell me I should not?

I'll note here that I do believe that abortion should be legal, but not on the feel-good argument that it is a womans right. Its not anybodys right to take a life, or perhaps even a potential life. Rather, we as a society do not place such a high value on human life as one might think. We allow the death penalty, we allow killing of humans in self defense, most would probably favor euthanasia in certain circumstances, very few oppose the very early termination of a pregnancy as a result of heavy doses of the pill or other birth control. I think that abortion is another exception that fits this category....that is, it is such an imposition and burden that society possible benefits from the terminated pregnancy.

Bottom line is that some people believe that human life is sacred. I can understand their argument. I do not agree with it, but I do understand it. And I do not call someone an idiot or retard because of their rational belief.

* believe that - if we didn't have all our retarded religious and ideological differences - we could cure cancer, solve homeless and hunger problems, and explore space and medicine in ways that would benefit each and every single person on the face of this planet

First f-up is to describe the differences as retarded......giving them no merit whatsoever. The second f-up to the basis of your belief is that w/o religion we would all get along. What a bunch of pot induced crap. Tried in the 60's and failed. Miserably.

Jimmy Carter tried being nice and peaceful to the Soviets his first two years in office. By the time he left he was rebuilding our military(though not to the level of Ronald Reagan) as he realized how much he f---ed up. He is the only U.S. President of the 20th century to use the nice-nice we will trust you approach. He along with Herbert Hoover are considered the biggest disasters as presidents of the 20th century.


Imagine is now a commercial.

Time for you to enter the world we actually live in.

[Jamie Michelle]

* oppose war and feel that religion and/or cultural divide is the cause for most of it

Lack of resources combined with a genetic/environment derived drive for power on the part of every world leader are the cause of war.

* oppose imperialism and geocentrism

In this modern era, there are people who favor imperialism? What nation engages in this behavior? None that I'm aware of.

Your counter argument will be that the U.S. is imperialist and Iraq is an example of that.

Do not use that counter argument without factual proof and rational argument.

Do not use conspiracy theories like the nut case in this thread. I don't believe in them. Nor do most real atheists.


Everyone that I am aware of who has any stated position on this maintains that a conspiracy was involved in what is often called the "9/11 attacks." This seems rather obvious, unless one desires to maintain that all of those flights being hijacked simultaniously was simply a coincidence (and one would have to further maintain that only one hijacker was involved with each flight--or that it was simply all an accident).

So it must be borne in mind that everyone is a conspiracy promoter when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. The difference is that I and others who care about the truth promote the documented conspiracy factualism concerning the U.S. government staging the 9/11 attacks, as opposed to the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Concerning the second U.S. invasion of Iraq:

First the rhetoric about invading Iraq was because Iraq was supposed to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks, but absolutely no evidence of that could be produced so that line was dropped. Then it was because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons have been found, so that line has been dropped. Now it's about "liberating" the Iraqi people--how absolutely selfless and thoughtful Bush & Co. are to spend trillions of U.S. tax-payers' money and sacrifice hundreds of U.S. soldiers' lives in the effort to free the Iraqi people by taking their personal firearms away. I suppose the next thing Bush & Co. are going to do is sell all their worldly possessions, donate the proceeds to charity and join a monastery.

But anyone parrotting the "liberation" line is either a lying sycophant or hasn't bothered to educate themselves very well on this matter--the same goes with the other lines, as well. This war has not the slightest thing in the world to do with "libertarting" the Iraqi people--other than liberating them from their oil reserves. We have this Presidential administration's own official statements regarding their intent to invade Iraq made almost exactly one year before the 9/11 attacks, saying in their official policy report that they would still invade Iraq even if Saddam and his regime no longer existed. So this invasion has not the slightest thing in the world to do with Saddam or whatever political system was in operation in that country--the U.S. was going to invade Iraq no matter what.

Below are particularly relevant excerpts from the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses--Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century: A Report of The Project for the New American Century," September 2000 ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ):

Page 14 (or 26 in the PDF browser):

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Page 17 (or 29 in the PDF browser):

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Also:

Page 51 (or 63 in the PDF browser):

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

And they got their "new Pearl Harbor" twelve months later. How very fortunate for them and their globe-dominating "Project."

Below are the June 3, 1997 signers of the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles ( http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ):

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz


See also:

"U.S. Harbored Terrorists to Bolster Its Case," Matt Bivens, Moscow Times, March 15, 2004, Page 8 http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/03/15/007.html

"Secret Bechtel Documents Reveal: Yes, It Is About Oil," David Lindorff, CounterPunch, April 9, 2003 http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04092003.html

"Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein," Jim Vallette, Steve Kretzmann and Daphne Wysham, Sustainable Energy and Economy Network/Institute for Policy Studies, 2nd edition: August 13, 2002 http://www.ips-dc.org/crudevision
http://www.seen.org/pages/reports/crude.shtml



* believe that humans are the inhabitants of this planet - not Americans or Muslims or atheists

You go tell that to Osama for me.


Osama bin Laden works for the CIA. For more on this, see the below mainstream major media and U.S. government primary documentation resource:

From: James Redford <jrredford@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternativ e,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ttj0d09ofjefrfgapi44ifpgu6lf2vi1h7%404 ax.com

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad-or-another-northwoods.html

See also the below books which are full of hardcore documentation on the U.S. government-staged 9/11 PsyOp:

The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001 by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, foreword and afterword by John Leonard (Tree of Life Publications; June 2002), ISBN: 0-930852-40-0 (0930852400), 400 pages:

http://www.williambowles.info/911/warfre-book.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/nafeez-mosaddeq-ahmed-the-war-on-freedom-warfre-book.pdf

The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by Prof. David Ray Griffin, foreword by Prof. Richard Falk (Olive Branch Press [an imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.]; March 2004), ISBN: 1-56656-552-9 (1566565529), 256 pages:

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/david-ray-griffin-the-new-pearl-harbor.html

Or, to find it elswhere online, see the below Google link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22followed+by+electrifying+revelations%2 2&num=100&filter=0



Do you not believe that there are humans who have an insanely strong drive for power? And that in that drive for power, inherently are amoungst the craftiest, if not most intelligent amoungst us? Or at least inherit and develop the skills necessary to obtain power? To control others?

This type of behavior is what has destroyed nations, and built them.

* believe that if stem cell research could possibly save lives and cure maladies, who the fuck is a politician to stand in the way of that science?

Well, if one accepts the notion that embreyo's are human life.......


* believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, who the fuck should be able to tell her 'no'?

Damm, I feel like killing a few people today. Who the f--- is some politician to tell me I should not?

I'll note here that I do believe that abortion should be legal, but not on the feel-good argument that it is a womans right. Its not anybodys right to take a life, or perhaps even a potential life. Rather, we as a society do not place such a high value on human life as one might think. We allow the death penalty, we allow killing of humans in self defense, most would probably favor euthanasia in certain circumstances, very few oppose the very early termination of a pregnancy as a result of heavy doses of the pill or other birth control. I think that abortion is another exception that fits this category....that is, it is such an imposition and burden that society possible benefits from the terminated pregnancy.


No one has the right to life per se, what people have a right to is to live an independant life. Since the unwanted unborn child is a parasite upon the mother, she has the right to evict it, even if the eviction does result in the death of the child.



Bottom line is that some people believe that human life is sacred. I can understand their argument. I do not agree with it, but I do understand it. And I do not call someone an idiot or retard because of their rational belief.

* believe that - if we didn't have all our retarded religious and ideological differences - we could cure cancer, solve homeless and hunger problems, and explore space and medicine in ways that would benefit each and every single person on the face of this planet

First f-up is to describe the differences as retarded......giving them no merit whatsoever. The second f-up to the basis of your belief is that w/o religion we would all get along. What a bunch of pot induced crap. Tried in the 60's and failed. Miserably.

Jimmy Carter tried being nice and peaceful to the Soviets his first two years in office. By the time he left he was rebuilding our military(though not to the level of Ronald Reagan) as he realized how much he f---ed up. He is the only U.S. President of the 20th century to use the nice-nice we will trust you approach. He along with Herbert Hoover are considered the biggest disasters as presidents of the 20th century.


Imagine is now a commercial.

Time for you to enter the world we actually live in.

[TeeLover]

lets cut to the chase, albert einstein the smartest guy in recent history was an atheist, if he didnt buy the BS, i dont...he said it best (despite tons of people trying to take his statement about god and dice out of context):

Einstien spent his whole life trying to prove that there are LAWS to this universe, things that must occur constantly without deviation...if there was a god who could be prayed to to reverse or disregard these laws, it goes against the very grain and concept of these laws..thus there can be no personal god, only science...



Actually - a few of his theory's have been disproven or at least proven to have "holes" in them (no pun intended) - especially on an atomic and sub-atomic level. He may have been the smartest guy in recent history only because the means to apply his theories in a real-world method was unavailable 50 years ago.

[Toro]

Lack of resources combined with a genetic/environment derived drive for power on the part of every world leader are the cause of war.

In this modern era, there are people who favor imperialism? What nation engages in this behavior? None that I'm aware of.

Your counter argument will be that the U.S. is imperialist and Iraq is an example of that.

Do not use that counter argument without factual proof and rational argument.

Do not use conspiracy theories like the nut case in this thread. I don't believe in them. Nor do most real atheists.

* believe that humans are the inhabitants of this planet - not Americans or Muslims or atheists

You go tell that to Osama for me.

* believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, who the fuck should be able to tell her 'no'?

Damm, I feel like killing a few people today. Who the f--- is some politician to tell me I should not?

* believe that - if we didn't have all our retarded religious and ideological differences - we could cure cancer, solve homeless and hunger problems, and explore space and medicine in ways that would benefit each and every single person on the face of this planet

First f-up is to describe the differences as retarded......giving them no merit whatsoever. The second f-up to the basis of your belief is that w/o religion we would all get along. What a bunch of pot induced crap. Tried in the 60's and failed. Miserably.

Jimmy Carter tried being nice and peaceful to the Soviets his first two years in office. By the time he left he was rebuilding our military(though not to the level of Ronald Reagan) as he realized how much he f---ed up. He is the only U.S. President of the 20th century to use the nice-nice we will trust you approach. He along with Herbert Hoover are considered the biggest disasters as presidents of the 20th century.


Imagine is now a commercial.

Time for you to enter the world we actually live in.


* France is fighting in the Ivory Coast ... TODAY ... because of imperialism. China has missiles aimed at Taiwan...TODAY...because of imperialism. Iraq invaded Kuwait 10 years ago...because of imperialism. Want more examples? What friggin rock do you live under?

* your 'go tell that to Osama' comment lets me know that you are on his same level of thought

* a politician shouldn't have to tell you not to kill someone, YOUR CONSCIENCE SHOULD

* Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, elevating him beyond the personal and professional success of ANY US president on the world stage, and the Soviet Union is in ruin. Maybe you think he was a shitty president, but you probably live in a red state.

Dude - YOU are the problem. And you are scary.

[steeveX]

forget bout osama. that guy is pissing himself for laughter that he drove an entire nation (well at least 51 %) all his way. hes the commander in chief not the bushman. besides, mr. "well get him dead or alive" what now? all bush supporters shiould do just like flip flopping bush has done two years ago : forget about osama

[Jamie Michelle]

forget bout osama. that guy is pissing himself for laughter that he drove an entire nation (well at least 51 %) all his way. hes the commander in chief not the bushman. besides, mr. "well get him dead or alive" what now? all bush supporters shiould do just like flip flopping bush has done two years ago : forget about osama

Indeed, Osama bin Laden is a Weapon of Mass Convenience:

*
PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, "dead or alive" in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years.

"I want justice," he said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. "And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' "

He then seemed to temper his remarks by adding: "All I want and America wants is to see them brought to justice. That's what we want."

("Bin Laden is wanted: dead or alive, says Bush," Toby Harnden, [London] Telegraph, September 18, 2001 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/18/wbush18.xml .)
*

*
Q: But then you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

Bush: Well, as I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. . . . I repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him. . . .

("'It's Not Helpful What the Israelis Have Recently Done,'" Federal News Service via the Washington Post, March 14, 2002; Page A20 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24243-2002Mar13.html .)
*

*
A plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members, senior intelligence officials said Thursday.

("Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.--Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote," Mike Ahlers, CNN, July 8, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/08/ridge.alqaeda/ .)
*

"Osama bin Laden: A Weapon of Mass Convenience":

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamabinladen_wmc.html