Israeli-Gaza War

[JamesL_CcLB34 10]

well while were talking prophecy and stuff.. first off my dad is a pastor but he doesn't claim to be a prophecy type of pastor but i come in contact with people who study this stuff a lot, at our church every once in awhile we have special meetings w/ a guy named Dr. Fred Hartman from pearisburg very smart guy and has a lot of experience w/ this stuff i guess. One interesting thing he has said that nowhere in the prophecy teachings can he find anything about the United States now obviously it isn't going to say U.S. in the bible but he is not the only one who believes this as there are a lot of other pastors who have studied this i'm sure. So what he and plenty of others believe is that the U.S. will fall at some point in the future and become a third-world country basically. Right now the U.S. is in a very bad economic situation we have a new president coming in while this israeli-gaza conflict is going on I'll be interested to see how obama handles that. also idk if anyone saw how obama got a gay priest to start his inaugaration i think it was? it was something like that. How will obama handle homosexuality in our country is another thing i have a real problem with i can see him pushing a bill to allow gay marriages idk if it would be passed or not though but still. With that said i'd encourage everyone to read about sodom and gomorrah in the Bible. Call me crazy but it all makes sense to me..

Edited January 15, 2009 by JamesL_CcLB34

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Bush did recieve info that there were credible threats to our country well before it took place and he was also aware of the ones that were made while Clinton was pres. The only reason communication or lack thereof was the problem is because both FBI and CIA were told to back off any investigations into the Saudis and key members of Bin Ladens family. Sure we screwed up there. Watch Farenheit 9-11 I know it's a one sided movie, but some things are what they are.

 

A lot of people knew there were credible threats, knowing what exactly they were is completely different.

 

A fact for you, after the bombing of the u.s.s. cole in yemen, 1 of the key investigators was closing in on bin laden, but he was expelled from the country because a u.s. embassador to yemen, a democratic woman, had him expelled because she said the heat from his investigations was making the people in the government there harder to work with, so he was brought back to the u.s..

He was 1 of the better sources of intel regarding al queda and his theory was that an attack on u.s. soil would be a second attack on the world trade center, ironically he was in the world trade center on 9 11 and killed.

 

Farenheit 9 11 is nothing more than propaganda made by 1 of the more ignorant and biased liberals around.

[fieldgeneral 10]

You had my attention until I read the last sentence and then it lost all credibility. It's truly sad that some people believe Michael Moore's propaganda.

 

As I said , it is a one sided version, however there are some things that are what they are....in other words, some things aren't one sided. Some things are just fact. I admit, I've watched it and some things are obviously one sided, but some things are not. I've not watched it for years so I would have to rewatch to give those specific examples.

[fieldgeneral 10]

A lot of people knew there were credible threats, knowing what exactly they were is completely different.

 

A fact for you, after the bombing of the u.s.s. cole in yemen, 1 of the key investigators was closing in on bin laden, but he was expelled from the country because a u.s. embassador to yemen, a democratic woman, had him expelled because she said the heat from his investigations was making the people in the government there harder to work with, so he was brought back to the u.s..

He was 1 of the better sources of intel regarding al queda and his theory was that an attack on u.s. soil would be a second attack on the world trade center, ironically he was in the world trade center on 9 11 and killed.

 

Farenheit 9 11 is nothing more than propaganda made by 1 of the more ignorant and biased liberals around.

 

A fact for you: A lot of peole knew of these threats, and one was the president. The sad thing was that he couldn't put things in motion to help prevent it.

[fieldgeneral 10]

A lot of people knew there were credible threats, knowing what exactly they were is completely different.

 

A fact for you, after the bombing of the u.s.s. cole in yemen, 1 of the key investigators was closing in on bin laden, but he was expelled from the country because a u.s. embassador to yemen, a democratic woman, had him expelled because she said the heat from his investigations was making the people in the government there harder to work with, so he was brought back to the u.s..

He was 1 of the better sources of intel regarding al queda and his theory was that an attack on u.s. soil would be a second attack on the world trade center, ironically he was in the world trade center on 9 11 and killed.

 

Farenheit 9 11 is nothing more than propaganda made by 1 of the more ignorant and biased liberals around.

 

A fact for you: A lot of peole knew of these threats, and one was the president. The sad thing was that he couldn't put things in motion to help prevent it.

 

The egyptian president also informed W 12 before it was to take place and it was printed in a Lebanese newspaper on the 5th....6 days before it occured. Also the CIA did issue a warning in the WEEKS prior to the attacks. I'm sorry but there is no way to defend the administration during that time. They screwed up.

[fieldgeneral 10]

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/September11.html

 

Too much info to post directly, but there is too much info to deny that there was information available to the government. We just turned the cheek the other way and hoped for the best. That good ole boy approach didn't work. You've gotta keep in mind that Bush appointed his choices to run and operate most offices. There was too much information out there and I'm convinced that there is much more if I wanted to look it up or whip out the 9-11 report.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Bush has admitted to knowing in general what might've happen on that day.

 

If he knew why didn't he:

 

1. Told Congress.

 

2. Improved airport security, which had already been criticized as inadequate.

 

3. Alerted the airlines. As it was, the airlines never raised any questions when the hijackers started laying down thousands in cash for one-way tickets.

 

4. Warned the FAA. The FAA control center in New Hampshire knew 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff that an American Airlines flight from Boston had been hijacked. It was more than half an hour later when it crashed into the World Trade Center.

 

5. Ordered improved security for the nation's nuclear power plants, the untended thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines, the harbors into which a terrorist could sail a liquid natural gas tanker and unleash a holocaust equal to a nuclear explosion.

 

Instead he:

 

1. He set in motion the installation of a secret Congress.

 

2. His administration marched far forward with its program for restricting civil rights and tightening immigration rules.

 

3. He started a shooting war in Afghanistan against a group of people—the Taliban—with whom the administration was quietly negotiating last summer(the summer before.) He advanced immeasurably the interests of those who want to go to war against Iraq. To me this war in Iraq was just a gift for daddy. There was and still isn't any basis for going into Iraq, no matter how many WMDs he thought up.

 

Bush protected himself and his friends. What he left uncovered was the rest of us.

 

Information provided by:http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-05-21/news/knowing-much-bush-did-little-to-protect-america/1 This is a New York news publication.

 

Argue any of this if you feel the need, but I'm done with it.

 

I feel that our nation chose the best person for office and good things will come. It will take some time to undo the tons of garbage that has been done. It's time for a change and we now have that change. If he doesn horrible, then fine, we will elect someone else in four years, but I don't think we have that to worry about. I'm not going to dwell on the subpar job our pres has done. I'm only going to hope that our next pres. serves our country with the people of it in mind and to the best of his ability. I'm done with GWB.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

A fact for you: A lot of peole knew of these threats, and one was the president. The sad thing was that he couldn't put things in motion to help prevent it.

 

The egyptian president also informed W 12 before it was to take place and it was printed in a Lebanese newspaper on the 5th....6 days before it occured. Also the CIA did issue a warning in the WEEKS prior to the attacks. I'm sorry but there is no way to defend the administration during that time. They screwed up.

 

you are simply wrong.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Bush has admitted to knowing in general what might've happen on that day.

 

If he knew why didn't he:

 

1. Told Congress.

 

2. Improved airport security, which had already been criticized as inadequate.

 

3. Alerted the airlines. As it was, the airlines never raised any questions when the hijackers started laying down thousands in cash for one-way tickets.

 

4. Warned the FAA. The FAA control center in New Hampshire knew 10 to 15 minutes after takeoff that an American Airlines flight from Boston had been hijacked. It was more than half an hour later when it crashed into the World Trade Center.

 

5. Ordered improved security for the nation's nuclear power plants, the untended thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines, the harbors into which a terrorist could sail a liquid natural gas tanker and unleash a holocaust equal to a nuclear explosion.

 

Instead he:

 

1. He set in motion the installation of a secret Congress.

 

2. His administration marched far forward with its program for restricting civil rights and tightening immigration rules.

 

3. He started a shooting war in Afghanistan against a group of people—the Taliban—with whom the administration was quietly negotiating last summer(the summer before.) He advanced immeasurably the interests of those who want to go to war against Iraq. To me this war in Iraq was just a gift for daddy. There was and still isn't any basis for going into Iraq, no matter how many WMDs he thought up.

 

Bush protected himself and his friends. What he left uncovered was the rest of us.

 

Information provided by:http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-05-21/news/knowing-much-bush-did-little-to-protect-america/1 This is a New York news publication.

 

Argue any of this if you feel the need, but I'm done with it.

 

I feel that our nation chose the best person for office and good things will come. It will take some time to undo the tons of garbage that has been done. It's time for a change and we now have that change. If he doesn horrible, then fine, we will elect someone else in four years, but I don't think we have that to worry about. I'm not going to dwell on the subpar job our pres has done. I'm only going to hope that our next pres. serves our country with the people of it in mind and to the best of his ability. I'm done with GWB.

 

I don't feel the need to debate propaganda.

And I'm certainly not even going to dignify your most ignorant comments about iraq or afghanastan.

 

As for obama, he will likely not be a good president at all except for the people willing to do away with a lot of freedom and accept a more socialist way of life. But it seems to me he hasn't come out with the smoking gun of socialist ideas many people like myself suspected, although at this point there's only talk of his plans. He might simply be wise enough not to announce the more extreme ideas to the public. More than that if he doesn't end up having that socialist agenda, while that would better for the country, it will be the left and the obama supporters that he will let down more than anyone else because if he doesn't become the socialist president many of us feared, he won't even come close to being the president that many who voted for him hoped he would be.

He can't do each, and much of that "change" he ran on, simply won't happen without the socialism.

 

In the end obama simply deserved the election because in all honesty mccain was simply a very bad candidate. The republicans would do much better to look for a candidate that gets back to conservative roots, rather than a much more moderate candidate that people never really believed in. I supported mccain because he was still better than socialism, but in all honesty he wasn't a very good candidate in many ways.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/September11.html

 

Too much info to post directly, but there is too much info to deny that there was information available to the government. We just turned the cheek the other way and hoped for the best. That good ole boy approach didn't work. You've gotta keep in mind that Bush appointed his choices to run and operate most offices. There was too much information out there and I'm convinced that there is much more if I wanted to look it up or whip out the 9-11 report.

 

I'll agree with info from the likes of stratfor

 

http://www.stratfor.com/

 

8 days a week over your liberal propaganda sites, along with my 1st hand knowledge from the military itself. Most americans never even bothered educating themselves on foreign affairs and national defense before sep 11th unlike a small % of people, nowadays though everyone's an expert because they read whatever style of bias they prefer from the many different "post" 9 11 expert journalists.

If only people could grasp how much fiction and ignorance there is in modern day journalism.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I'll agree with info from the likes of stratfor

 

http://www.stratfor.com/

 

8 days a week over your liberal propaganda sites, along with my 1st hand knowledge from the military itself. Most americans never even bothered educating themselves on foreign affairs and national defense before sep 11th unlike a small % of people, nowadays though everyone's an expert because they read whatever style of bias they prefer from the many different "post" 9 11 expert journalists.

If only people could grasp how much fiction and ignorance there is in modern day journalism.

 

Thats fne if you would have gave me a link telling me other than what I posted for you. I mean I could post this:

 

http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050313/is-stratfor-credible/

 

Your site never said anything about the topic. Stratfor is all about that "paid membership" That is ridiculous. Who pays for those memberships?................

[fieldgeneral 10]

I don't feel the need to debate propaganda.

And I'm certainly not even going to dignify your most ignorant comments about iraq or afghanastan.

 

As for obama, he will likely not be a good president at all except for the people willing to do away with a lot of freedom and accept a more socialist way of life. But it seems to me he hasn't come out with the smoking gun of socialist ideas many people like myself suspected, although at this point there's only talk of his plans. He might simply be wise enough not to announce the more extreme ideas to the public. More than that if he doesn't end up having that socialist agenda, while that would better for the country, it will be the left and the obama supporters that he will let down more than anyone else because if he doesn't become the socialist president many of us feared, he won't even come close to being the president that many who voted for him hoped he would be.

He can't do each, and much of that "change" he ran on, simply won't happen without the socialism.

 

In the end obama simply deserved the election because in all honesty mccain was simply a very bad candidate. The republicans would do much better to look for a candidate that gets back to conservative roots, rather than a much more moderate candidate that people never really believed in. I supported mccain because he was still better than socialism, but in all honesty he wasn't a very good candidate in many ways.

 

 

You obviously are buying all the crap some of the hard right are slinging and were slinging during the election. Truth is his ideas are in the best interest of America. Freedoms? What freedoms will be lost? Also, what gives you the idea that he wants a socialist America? Is it because of his taxation ideas? Center-left Democrats like Clinton and Obama aren't even remotely socialist. People equate "socialism" with "using taxes to pay for things." Sorry, but there's more to it than that. Read Marx.

Maybe the smoking gun you talk of was the crap the McCain supporters wanted you to believe that never existed. Next Tuesday our country will celebrate a great point in history. Not only will we have our first African-American President, but it is an end to an era that I would almost like to forget as far as our government goes. I will be one of many that knows our country is in better hands not to mention more intelligent hands.

Edited January 16, 2009 by fieldgeneral

[fieldgeneral 10]

you are simply wrong.

 

Your link does no good unless it provides something to prove my claim incorrect. By the way, I"m not trying to tick you off as some may think, just having a healthy debate.

[hokie07 11]

Center-left Democrats like Clinton and Obama aren't even remotely socialist. People equate "socialism" with "using taxes to pay for things." Sorry, but there's more to it than that. Read Marx.

 

I don't want to jump in this conversation at all but I feel the need to interject when I see statements like the one above.

 

Obama is a "center-left" Democrat??? He was voted the most liberal person in the Senate in 2007. Just take a look at the little voting record he has and you'll see he is a bit "off center". I might give you the benefit and say that Obama might not be a socialist, per say, but he has very socialistic ideas. We all know he has been quoted as saying profits are selfish and that the government could redistribute the wealth in a much better way. That doesn't exactly scream capitalism now, does it?

[fieldgeneral 10]

I don't want to jump in this conversation at all but I feel the need to interject when I see statements like the one above.

 

Obama is a "center-left" Democrat??? He was voted the most liberal person in the Senate in 2007. Just take a look at the little voting record he has and you'll see he is a bit "off center". I might give you the benefit and say that Obama might not be a socialist, per say, but he has very socialistic ideas. We all know he has been quoted as saying profits are selfish and that the government could redistribute the wealth in a much better way. That doesn't exactly scream capitalism now, does it?

 

Ok, he might not be dead center, but he isn't way off either.

A lot of people throw that socialistic term out there anytime someone wants to use tax money in a more appropriate way. Those that use it like that just want to throw a label on something they don't agree with. Keep in mind that Congress must pass any ideas that he throws out there to be passed.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Thats fne if you would have gave me a link telling me other than what I posted for you. I mean I could post this:

 

http://seekerblog.com/archives/20050313/is-stratfor-credible/

 

Your site never said anything about the topic. Stratfor is all about that "paid membership" That is ridiculous. Who pays for those memberships?................

 

I posted the stratfor site simply as a reference of very good non biased, accurate intelligence, 1 of the primary sources I've used for years. They've been around for decades and they're 1 of the best souces of intel there is. I wasn't posting it as a particular article for you to read, although there is lots there in archives, more than anything you could look through their books for specific topics. "America's secret war", I'd highly recommend for example.

But who pays for memberships, lots of people for different sites, lots of people pay memberships for more inside sports info on sites such as rivals, even swva has vip memberships, I don't see any hoopla because stratfor will provide more details to paid members.

Edited January 17, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Your link does no good unless it provides something to prove my claim incorrect. By the way, I"m not trying to tick you off as some may think, just having a healthy debate.

 

I didn't provide a site in that case, we simply disagree on that and I simply won't dignify certain propaganda by debating it. I'm not ticked off either, nothing wrong with debate, I don't take these matters personally with individuals. I'll respond more about obama when I have more time.

Edited January 17, 2009 by buzzsawBeaver

[marionman 10]

I didn't provide a case in that case, we simply disagree on that and I simply won't dignify certain propaganda by debating it. I'm not ticked off either, nothing wrong with debate, I don't take these matters personally with individuals. I'll respond more about obama when I have more time.

 

Hope Israel blows them off the face of the Earth for starting it.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Ok, he might not be dead center, but he isn't way off either.

A lot of people throw that socialistic term out there anytime someone wants to use tax money in a more appropriate way. Those that use it like that just want to throw a label on something they don't agree with. Keep in mind that Congress must pass any ideas that he throws out there to be passed.

 

Redistribution of wealth is an appropriate way? The very idea of redistribution of wealth is steeped in socialism. Much of this change proposed is government taking care of the people, people being dependent on government, government deciding what is right for people, ect.. You forget something when you suggest that people simply use the term socialism when they don't agree with something, many of these ideas "are socialist" in nature and these are his words. his ideas, these are agendas he has said numerous times he intends to implement.

I'm not exactly certain at what point you would expect someone to not be wary of this individual, unless you simply welcome this type of government "rule".

As for congress, the democrats have congress in big numbers, exactly what makes you think they'll have much trouble passing anything?

Here's the fact for you as already mentioned, he by record is 1 of the most liberal politicians there is. We can expect some of the most liberal agendas possible.

Myself I am concerned about gun rights, his "record", not his "I'm pro gun" pre election commercials, but his "voting record" shows him to be as anti gun as could be, chicago is 1 of the most anti gun cities in America, you're darned right I'm concerned. Not to mention he's appointed a very anti gun politician to a post that will have a lot of influence on gun rights already.

The 2nd amendment was 2nd only behind freedom of speech for a big reason.

 

The guy makes scary comments in the midst of his speeches, the other day in the midst of a speech he said we must replace the old declaration of independence with 1 that reflects the changes needed, or something to that effect. Is that to be considered literally, I don't know, maybe, maybe not, but the mere fact that a president of the U.S. would even say something like that is scary.

He's already spoken of his agenda to permit gays to openly serve in the military, that's correct he's already starting to tamper with our military in a way that will weaken it. Gay agenda, liberal or not?

You and others expect all the change and not be concerned, so be it, I'm concerned.

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

Hope Israel blows them off the face of the Earth for starting it.

 

Doesn't look like it's gonna happen this time, hard to believe these people know they aren't going to stop getting shelled within their borders until they do end these people, and they're backing off yet again.