Back to Been there, continuing from post #11:

murders innocent civilians, shoots up towns and villages for sport, gang rapes young girls after murdering their families and then subsequently murders that cunt once they are done with "it", etc, etc, etc.

---Been there

Okay, are you actually getting this stuff from somewhere, or are you just making it up as you go along? I'm betting it's option number 2. Who's the stupid one here?

And then you turn around and talk like your team is not already the monster? How much more fucking monsterous do you think you need to become?

---Been there

Wow, you apparently have absolutely no clue how monstrous we COULD be, if we were so inclined. And why are you cussing at me? Another hateful, self-loathing, angry Leftie, I assume? You can't swing a dead cat these days without at least hitting one of you.

Nothing like good old America-bashing to get the blood going, huh? To what end, might I ask?
When your side and its true believers have ultimately managed to undermine everything we do, and you're forced at gunpoint to worship Allah, your nation herded into a worldwide Caliphate, your mother and sisters forced into burkhas and stoned to death for maybe wearing eyeliner or even accidently showing a finger, maybe then you'll understand. But I doubt it. Nah, to you, America will still have been the monster. The evil aggressor.

People like you are so full of shit. You've got your head so far up your own arse that its no wonder the world stinks of death the way it does.

---Been there

Again with the pottymouth....tsk, tsk. You kiss your soon-to-be-burkha-clad mommy with that mouth? Advice:
Don't do it in public; they'll probably cut off your lips. Just remember, she's nothing but a baby machine. She has no value or purpose outside that of basic reproduction. Remember that, and you'll get by juuuust fiiiine in the new Islamic World Order you allowed to happen, and indeed supported.
Tell you what, Leftie, I don't know where you come from, but if you're an American, I'll say this: the world has stunk of death since 1973, when Roe v. Wade hit the books and said it was okay to kill innocent, unborn babies for virtually any reason whatsoever.
If you're European, your side over there supports both abortion AND euthanasia. Way to go.
And we Righties are the killers, huh? At least WE kill people who can, and want to, kill us.
Your side has taken more lives, and without even really trying, than mine ever will, and what lives we take, we take in our effort of defending your right to make your immoral, indecent and sick choices. Stick that in your "arse" and fart it.

Rightwingers solution to reduce death and misery....... MORE death and misery. Well congratulations!!!

---Been there

Nah, my solution to death and misery would be to inject you and all the other moronic, wrongheaded, America-hating traitors on the Left with some drug or other that enhances common sense and basic human compassion.
Wake you up so you can see just how idiotic and wrong you really, truly are. How much damage you're doing, and have already done without even realizing it. That would go a long way toward that particular goal.

Where's "Been There" been? Doesn't seem like he's "been" on this planet, does it?

Adamness: Don't be too quick to pat yourself on the back. I work alot, see, and my time is limited. I'll get to you.

MasonM, steved, drmiler and Charles C.: Thanks for the support.

All others, my apologies for posting in the wrong forum. Thanks for your comments.

Adamness: I misspoke above, and it's not letting me edit. I should have said "often agnostic or atheistic, anti-war liberals." Sorry.

Awww, man....what's goin' on? Ignore #16. Double post, but not quite. #15 is pretty much as I want it, except for what I added in #17 for Adamness.

It's not letting me edit; keeps telling me I'm not authorized for that function, or something. Had no trouble earlier. Server errors? I hope?

Hehe, I get it.

Are you talking about Christians or politicians? There's a difference; morality is one thing, political expediency is quite another.

So, once someone becomes a politician, they don't have to follow their Christian morals anymore? They're not obligated to help the poor or 'love their enemy?' Isn't that why people elect Christians?...So they WILL vote and act based on what their faith tells them?

But compared to the attrocities committed on the part of the Islamic terrorists, our troops have been Boy Scouts.

I agree that our troops have committed less atrocities than those they're fighting against, but that doesn't mean anything to me. Is murdering 5 civilians that much better than 10?

The 'insurgents' in Iraq certainly don't represent Islam as a whole. That would be like saying Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson represents all Christians, or David Duke representing all white people. And even if you think 'Christian morality' is better than 'Muslim morality,' so what? Does that mean it's no loss if a few extra end up dead? Would you want to make them all Christians? Comparing morality is a judgement call...I thought you weren't allowed to judge.

I should have said "often agnostic or atheistic, anti-war liberals.

Well atheist, agnostic, anti- war or not, that's not true. Less than 10% of America are atheists or agnostic. And you can be sure, we're underrepresented in Congress and the government as a whole whether it's local, state or federal. You can disagree with our choices or faith (or lack thereof) if you want, but is it really fair and just to deny us proper representation? We simply don't have the power to divide the country.

See, I'm a social moderate and a libertarian. I don't fit into 'liberal' or 'conservative.' Those two labels are what divides the country. Since when did 300 million people have to fit into only two groups? Most of America are moderates, and yet, nobody sees it that way. The President and his administration have repeatedly tried to isolate those who don't agree with them, whether they were France and Germany, or American citizens. We all make fun of Democrats for being spineless and weak-kneed, so I doubt they have the power to divide. I certainly do blame the administration for pushing everyone into the two camps of 'liberal' and 'conservative.'

So you can blame 'atheists' or 'agnostics' or 'anti- war' people all you want, but scapegoating the minority is a dangerous precident, and probably exactly what the current administration wants.

And one more thing. Even as an atheist, I'm probably a much better 'Christian' than most 'Christians' out there. My morality is certainly more reasonable and rational and compassionate than, say, the President.

I'm puzzled. As an expatriate South African living in Egypt, I've never been sure why Bush went into Iraq in the first place? Was it oil (Halliburton Cheney may have had influence?) Was it the terror threat (How many 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq?)

Was it hatred for an oppressive regime (Saddam's reign pales in comparison with the old Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan --now there's a bunch of blood-thirsty bastards.)

Perhaps it was WMD's. Well North Korea and Iran could teach Bush about WMD's. Saddam had none.

Perhaps Bush put a pin on a map and said: " Let's go boys, this is Disneyland in reverse."

I'm puzzled, that's all. And I'm serious. What were Bush'es motives?

So, once someone becomes a politician, they don't have to follow their Christian morals anymore? They're not obligated to help the poor or 'love their enemy?' Isn't that why people elect Christians?...So they WILL vote and act based on what their faith tells them?

---Adamness

Let's get real, here. Ideally, and in a perfect world, yes; that is why Christian people elect "Christian" candidates. But no one is perfect, not even us Christ-lovers.
I mean come on, for example....JFK was a devout Catholic....Clinton was Baptist (he even carried a bible when the photo op was there). Both were raging philanderers, and Clinton was a liar of the first magnitude (but that was okay, according the NYT's Maureen Dowd, because he gave "clever semantic clues" when he lied. She doesn't care for Bush's lies, somehow....I guess he's not cute enough. Or liberal enough, either one). I personally doubt either of them is enjoying the company of Jesus. That's not judging, by the way; that's stating an opinion, which is allowed.
How many politicians do you really think there are in heaven? I have no way of knowing, of course. But politics usually involves deceit and treachery of some kind and degree. and many, many of them end up using corrupt methods and shedding any pretense of ethics. That doesn't get you into heaven.

Look, I have to go right now. I'll be back later on to finish up here. Thanks for posting.

Well, there is a BIG difference between lying about a blowjob and lying about a war. Based on his actions, I'd say Bush has been the least Christian-like President we've had. It has nothing to do with the circumstances placed on him. He could have been completely open and honest, but instead he misled the country about the war, planted seeds about the connection between Saddam and al Qaida and manipulated America. He opened secret prisons around the world which he is only now acknowledging. He's spying on us. He's certainly not helping out the poor and disenfranchised. In fact, rather than helping them, they're being recruited for the military.

I would have much less of a problem with the President if he wouldn't call himself a Christian. When I hear someone say they're Christian, I expect them to, you know, act based on the teachings of Christ. While I don't agree with the divinity of Jesus, I certainly agree with many of the things he preached. (After all, Jesus was one of the most influential liberals in history. ) Do you think Jesus would agree with any of the actions of Bush? Of course not.

So, it's morally wrong to leave them to their own devices because innocent people might get hurt, BUT it's a good idea to fight viciously even if it means innocent people will get hurt.

??

Well, there is a BIG difference between lying about a blowjob and lying about a war.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The lying about the bj was on the stand and under "oath" to tell the truth. He did not do so. And if GW ever gets called to the stand and put under oath about this, I'd expect him to tell the truth.

And if GW ever gets called to the stand and put under oath about this, I'd expect him to tell the truth.

Dont expect the democrats to understand the difference. hell, they still support Sandy Burgler. The Ends justify the means! New Democrat slogan.

And if GW ever gets called to the stand and put under oath about this, I'd expect him to tell the truth.

I expected the President and his staff to tell the truth whether they were under oath or not. I guess that's an assumption nobody should make anymore.

The Ends justify the means! New Democrat slogan.

Is that a joke? This whole "war on terror" is a ends justifying the means scenario. They're spying on American citizens, torturing detainees, starting unprovoked wars, all in the name of 'national security.' Sadly, in our case, the 'means' is making us less secure. No 'end' in sight.

Is that a joke? This whole "war on terror" is a ends justifying the means scenario. They're spying on American citizens, torturing detainees, starting unprovoked wars, all in the name of 'national security.' Sadly, in our case, the 'means' is making us less secure. No 'end' in sight.

You are new. So you comments are neophyte. yes, the democrats, since 1964, have been the ends justify the means. Prove your allegations. Name one citizen spied on. name one detainee tortured. Name one unprovoked war. Sadly we are more secure since BJ clinton left the white house. Might want to catch the latest ABC movie. IN reality, you are a koolaid drinker who refuses to face facts.

just heaving (as in throwing up) innuendos.

Sad, very sad.

Is that a joke? This whole "war on terror" is a ends justifying the means scenario. They're spying on American citizens, torturing detainees, starting unprovoked wars, all in the name of 'national security.' Sadly, in our case, the 'means' is making us less secure. No 'end' in sight

What a maroon!

The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against the Bush admin on behalf of three authors, two scholars and three non-profit groups who believe they've been spied upon. The judge refused to throw out the case so far, so we'll see what happens. As for those being tortured, Maher Arar, Omar Khadr, Khalid El-Masri and others have accused the government of torturing them, or sending them off to be tortured. And Iraq was clearly an unprovoked war. Did they attack us? No. The President recently said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm sure you'll dismiss all of this, and say they're lying, but you asked, and I answered. The government would obviously deny torturing detainees, so I don't trust what they have to say in this case. The UN, Amnesty International and the Red Cross have criticized our detainment methods and accused us of torturing.

I don't know what you mean when you say I'm 'new,' but in whatever context you mean, I don't see why that should matter. If you dismiss me because I'm 'new,' it's your problem. If anyone is a 'koolaid drinker,' it's you, blindly following the President's lead, and using O'Reiley's insult. Insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts, and makes you look immature.

Insult me all you want, but it doesn't change the facts,

Some "real" facts might be nice.