``There is no military solution in Iraq,'' [Carl] Levin said. ``There is only a political solution.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awQvDxVq2bN4&refer=home

While everyone is waiting for the results of the Iraq Study Group, it seems the president is on board agreeing to consider all options.

Interesting though, John McCain is standing by his call for even more troops in Iraq.


Regardless of what direction things so, it looks like SOMETHING is gonna happen fairly soon. Too bad it we had to strike an iceberg to wake the captian up to toss the helmsman overboard!

Exciting days awaits us!

I wonder how McCain's call for more troops will play in the 2008 campaign if Iraq is issue #1 (most likely) by then? Oddly enough, I sort of agree with him. I mean...either we increase our troop level to OVERWHELMING numbers (including an internationalized force, not just US troops) or we get out. Our current troop strength is just enough to prevent completely anarchy but not enough to "win." Anyway, no amount of troops will "win" in Iraq with the failed assumption our beloved President now has about all the native-born Iraqi insurgents being "terrorists" just because they want us the hell out of their country.

Andrew

IMHO, the numbers are gonna have to be really big for it to work. Even then, a small insurgent group that has a steady supply of new recruits can cause a lot of damage.

Numbers have to be high enough to essentially lock the country down. If this is done, I think it needs to be combined with serious reconstruction efforts that employ willing Iraqis for it all to have a chance of working.

I think that means we need a combination of diplomacy and force, or we just get out and use diplomacy only. Either way, we've got some bridge building to do.

Well, it's about as ugly as it gets. Seems the morgues are full in Bagdad.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/12/baghdad.morgue.ap/index.html

andrew: "I mean...either we increase our troop level to OVERWHELMING numbers"

aka The Powell Doctrine.

(see, I did my homework!)

How can the Democrats withdraw our troops? Isn't the President still Commander in Chief?

Yes he is, but he can be pressured.

Being in control of both houses means they can really impact the agenda. Before they were very limited to getting some votes from across the asile, and making public statements. They had pretty much nothing where hearings and the agenda in general were concerned.

Additionally, Resident Bush has let Rummy go. This is an acknowledgement of the American people not wanting to stay the course. Nobody wants nothing to come of Iraq afterall. Now there is some pressure for new ideas to come into play.

"How can the Democrats withdraw our troops? Isn't the President still Commander in Chief?"

The President is the Commander in Chief, but Congress writes the check to fund the whole damn thing.

When the NVA invaded and took over Saigon in 1975, President Ford wanted to send US troops back over to help push back the Communists, per our agreement with the South Vietnamese when we withdrew. Congress REFUSED to allocate the funds for such an action, and Saigon capitulated in short order as a result.

If no money is going to the Iraq war, there will be no Iraq war.

Yep, there is that option too.

However, it seems to me a dangerous one. Cut the dollars, the Resident can leave the troops there and start exploiting the whole mess!

The Democrats won't cut funding for the troops and leave them stuck there. That would lead to the kind of disasterous public relations blunder the Republicans pulled in 1995 when they shut the government down in a game of chicken with Bill Clinton. Poor bastards didn't know who they were dealing with...

I don't think these Democrats will be as foolish or arrogant. But, there are more subtle, indirect ways for the Congressional Democrats to influence Iraq policy. First of all, they can limit who gets appointed to what posts that require presidential approval. They can investigate (finally - OVERSIGHT!) and subpeana people. They can deny Bush the things he may want for Iraq in legislation and appropriations without just cutting all funding.

For the first time since becoming president, Bush may actually have to negotiate with the Congress to get some of the things that he wants - and if he totally thumbs his nose at the Congress and goes his own way about Iraq, he won't get his way on other things he might want (e.g. Estate Tax reforms), especially as long as public opinion is behind him. Suddenly, Bush's approval ratings mean a lot more than they did with a Republican Congress.

Still, I don't expect Bush to back down from a fight if it comes to that. He's got nothing to lose, after all, but members of Congress will be running for re-election in 2008.

Andrew

well, we could trade one bolton for 45,000 troops.

Author: Brianl
Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 10:28 pm


"How can the Democrats withdraw our troops? Isn't the President still Commander in Chief?"

The President is the Commander in Chief, but Congress writes the check to fund the whole damn thing.

When the NVA invaded and took over Saigon in 1975, President Ford wanted to send US troops back over to help push back the Communists, per our agreement with the South Vietnamese when we withdrew. Congress REFUSED to allocate the funds for such an action, and Saigon capitulated in short order as a result.

If no money is going to the Iraq war, there will be no Iraq

I guess you forgot what the result of all of that was haven't you? we had 6 million people killed by Pol Pot! Do you want that to happen in Iraq? Thats what would happen if our troops came home now! I hope the Democrats aren't dumb enought to repeat the mistakes they made when they pressured Nixon into signing the peace deal with the VietCong which was really no peace deal at all

"I guess you forgot what the result of all of that was haven't you? we had 6 million people killed by Pol Pot!"

Wayne: Pol Pot was in Cambodia. What the hell did we have to do with him executing some six million of his own people? Our excursions into Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict were to cut off the Ho Chi Minh trail. How did **WE** have six million killed by Pol Pot?

Besides, Pol Pot wasn't even in charge until 1975 ... the Khmer Rouge took over Phnom Penh at the same time Saigon was falling.

Also, Nixon signed the Paris Peace Accord with North and South Vietnamese and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong), not JUST the Viet Cong ... and the North was driven to the bargaining table when Nixon re-introduced Rolling Thunder, at a much more escalated pace than it had been when LBJ used it.

Get your facts straight.

I honestly don't know if there would be more than 600,000 Iraqi deaths at their own hands like there are on OUR hands if we left.

The difference in intelligence is striking when it's in text.

I have seen little of that from the libs here.

WOW is Wayner ignorant or what? JHC! Pol Pot in Cambodia and Vietnam???? Same thing??? NOPE!
Wayner get an Fin clue!
Have Herb proof read your garbage before you post it PLEASE!

one does wonder why Trixter is still amazed.

give it up. look at the scoreboard. he's in the minority now.

I see less reason than that from the libs. They just now said on the news that the Democrats were divided on the war in Iraq. there are a number who don't agree with John Murtha's idea of cut run and surrender (which "redeploymment really is.) Most would rather the US win the war but maybe with more troops and a different strategy.

I see less reason than that from the libs. They just now said on the news that the Democrats were divided on the war in Iraq. there are a number who don't agree with John Murtha's idea of cut run and surrender (which "redeploymment" really is.) Most would rather the US win the war but maybe with more troops and a different strategy.

WW said>>>
a different strategy.

And without DUHbya and Co. having ANYTHING to do with Iraq. That is what would really help!!!!

Without the libs telling the President how to run the war that would help. The libs want us to LOSE the war on terror! Especially Murtha!

We're still ignoring Wayne, right? I haven't been around since the upgrade and lost track.

Ignoring WHO?

Andrew

I guess you have no answer do you?

Unless the Iraqi government and Bush Jr. allows us to go after the militia, I say withdraw immediately. It is unfair to our troops to not let them attack the militia and just wait to be bombed. If we are going to fight a war, let's fight a war, or come home.

CJ, yes, the wise continue to ignore the troll . . . really, how many time does one want to recycle NOTHING over and over again? That's all the troll is offering -- NOTHING.

I've noticed that many people are just glancing over the troll's posts on both sides of the board these days.

WE HAVE LOST THE WAR WAYNE!!!!!

Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists before that brain trust in the white house decided to invade, now it it. Let me ask you something, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden? Isn't he the one we are supposed to be chasing? Until I see him with a noose around his neck, you have no arguement. Even your hero Bush says he doesn't think about him much anymore. Some war.

Oh yes I forgot. The only truth is the one you conservatives choose to see.

Yep - that's why they are confused about their loss on November 7.

Andrew

WE HAVE LOST THE WAR WAYNE!!!!!

Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists before that brain trust in the white house decided to invade, now it it. Let me ask you something, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden? Isn't he the one we are supposed to be chasing? Until I see him with a noose around his neck, you have no arguement. Even your hero Bush says he doesn't think about him much anymore. Some war.

with3 elections and the removal of Saddam? Thats right I forget he is your hero. Even if Osama WERE hung you still would think we lost the war. I think you want the terrorists to win! The Democrats sure do.

Andrew, confused is not even the start of it.

I'm on a coupla extreme rightie mailing lists. Let's just say the worst talk here is tame, by comparison!

Let me ask you something, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden? Isn't he the one we are supposed to be chasing


ask Bill Clinton, Aok! He turned him down three times on a silver platter. Clinton thought Bin was not any threat!

Wayner it's impossible for you to see things the way the rest of the US sees it.
The voters have spoken and your BULLSHIT didn't work this time. With the above statement(S) you have once again shown that you have your head buried so far up your bottom that you've suffered brain damage from lack of oxygen.
PULL IT OUT OLD MAN!
Have fun living off the sweat of liberals so you could have a pension you HYPOCRITE!
I'm really done this time guys.... seriously Wayner has to be the most ignorant F ever!

With statements like>>>>
Clinton thought Bin was not any threat!

Wayner is VERY MISinformed. Please Wayner I beg you to go back and look at how Clinton didn't think BL wasn't a threat. YOUR GD POS President didn't even give him one thought when he took office and neither did anyone in his cabinet.
GET THE FACTS BEFORE YOU SPOUT LIES!

Clinton was offered BL on a silver platter because he thought BL wasn't a threat. Thats the truth. You need to stop denying it Trix. We would have had no 9-11 had Clinton taken BL.

And again your profanity proves my point.

WW said>>>>
Clinton was offered BL on a silver platter because he thought BL wasn't a threat.

LIES!

And your IGNORANCE proves my point

Your swearing and smearing proves my point. You can't argue any other way.

You have no point, and in fact, you are wrong.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120011

Bill Clinton was not offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, and it's been proven.

You're a fucking idiot for continuing to repeat such bullshit.

Calm down people. Just point out the contradiction and move on. Save your energy for thoughtful debates with righties of the intellectual kind.

Your swearing and smearing just proved my point. Why do you post such a liberal site? Clinton was offered BL on a silver platter. The only way you can prove otherwise is with your profanity.

Author: Skeptical
Monday, November 13, 2006 - 11:17 pm


Calm down people. Just point out the contradiction and move on. Save your energy for thoughtful debates with righties of the intellectual kind.

that was meant for Pete but I haven't found any leftist who was intellectual. The only thing any leftist can do is smear and swear. He has no desire to converse in any gentlemanly manner.

Not everyone is a gentleman, Wayne. Get over it. While you prize politeness and decorum, we prize facts and the ablity to back them up. Since our current administration lacks in that department, we don't like it. And so we say so.

Deal with it.

Agreed.

It's way too easy of an out to say a smear and swear proves my point! All it proves is that you cannot play with the big kids.

The point stands or falls on it's own factual merit, regardless of matters of form.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Monday, November 13, 2006 - 11:36 pm


Not everyone is a gentleman, Wayne. Get over it. While you prize politeness and decorum, we prize facts and the ablity to back them up. Since our current administration lacks in that department, we don't like it. And so we say so.

Deal with it.

deal with it? You really mean agree don't you? Why can't you admit thats what you really want?

OK. It's what I want.

Now what?

WW Your IGNORANCE proves my point. You can't THINK any other way.

Hey Wayner, I'll step up and be honest about what I want at least:

(here it comes!)

I want you to support your bull shit. This means factual information that presents your view in a favorable light.

I also want you to feel pretty bad about your unwillingless to accept our equality as people. This is not defensible. There is no support for it. The God you believe in stands for it. Your fellow man demands it.

I don't demand agreement, but will work very hard to force accountability for your views aired here in public. By posting them, you've asked for it you know.

There may well be alternatives to many of the things posted here. If you feel really bad about how your views have been received, you've got some options besides agreement. Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll post them here just as a public service:

-bring some support to the table, thus putting you in a position where feeling bad is less of an option

-shut up about it and keep your less than desirable views quiet

-reconsider and present some alternatives that perhaps others might see some middle ground on

-accept that others are not going to look highly on those views, suck it up, and don't cry about it, knowing in your mind you are right.

There are others, but those are the biggies.

Of course, some agreement that discrimination is wrong, that your church is not the authority on God's will, and that labels are not all they are cracked up to be would be ideal. Doing this would put you more in line with the majority American view. But that's really up to you.

Just don't say that all others want is agreement. You do have options. I've presented a few of them here. It's all up to you as to how you want to go forward.

Gonna play with the big kids? Better act like one then.

"I want you to support your bull shit. This means factual information that presents your view in a favorable light."

How about supporting his information, period.

Like those 500 WMD pieces "found" in Iraq. Give us more than "pictures were taken". How about actual documentation that we all can see?

How about how we were directly responsible for Pol Pot killing six million of his own people in Cambodia?

How about how Clinton lied to a grand jury and broke the law, but Nixon DIDN'T break the law in his tampering of evidence in HIS grand jury hearing?

How about how no liberal "would ever go after Fidel Castro"?

Should I go on? I could go for days.

Evidence Wayne. Back up your stuff with evidence. The rest of us do, and when you don't it makes you look like a buffoon.

Why in the world are you guys still fooling around with this guy? Seriously. He keeps doing the same thing over and over again - are you going to endlessly ask him the same basic questions and let him keep yanking your chain endlessly? Can't you just ignore him?

Andrew

ignore-ance is bliss

Yep.

Consider that the occasional public service post. I'm not gonna engage on a harmful level again.

Author: Missing_kskd
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 9:37 am


Hey Wayner, I'll step up and be honest about what I want at least:

(here it comes!)

I want you to support your bull shit. This means factual information that presents your view in a favorable light.

you mean agree don't you?

I also want you to feel pretty bad about your unwillingless to accept our equality as people. This is not defensible. There is no support for it. The God you believe in stands for it. Your fellow man demands it.

What you are saying is that you want me to agree or else


I don't demand agreement, but will work very hard to force accountability for your views aired here in public. By posting them, you've asked for it you know.

sure you want agreement

There may well be alternatives to many of the things posted here. If you feel really bad about how your views have been received, you've got some options besides agreement. Because I'm such a nice guy, I'll post them here just as a public service:


they haven't been received because you only care about one thing: agreement


-bring some support to the table, thus putting you in a position where feeling bad is less of an option

why bother? You won't buy it unless you agree with it

-shut up about it and keep your less than desirable views quiet

so you want to censor everyone you don't like

-reconsider and present some alternatives that perhaps others might see some middle ground on

-accept that others are not going to look highly on those views, suck it up, and don't cry about it, knowing in your mind you are right.

I think you need to practice what you preach

There are others, but those are the biggies.

Of course, some agreement that discrimination is wrong, that your church is not the authority on God's will, and that labels are not all they are cracked up to be would be ideal. Doing this would put you more in line with the majority American view. But that's really up to you.
now you are using my church to make me agree with you? And the Bible is the authority on what God's will. And He doesn't expect me to agree with you on everything


Just don't say that all others want is agreement. You do have options. I've presented a few of them here. It's all up to you as to how you want to go forward.

Why not? You know thats the truth.

Gonna play with the big kids? Better act like one then

You only mean one thing here: my total blind agreement is all you care about here. why do you have such a problem that not everyone in the world will agree with you?

Isn't it horrible how much WW hates America....
He hates the fact that AMERICA voted against his views....
Sad... So very sad.....

why do you hate America?

I just can't understand the hatred that Wayner shows for our troops and his own country....

Sad... Very Sad....

It's pretty easy Trix. He goes to a hate church where everybody mostly does the same hating. They call it sinning so they can feel really good about it on Sunday.

The Pastor there has yet to answer my question on equality. It's the same one posted here. Explains a lot actually.

Best to move on.

I'm tired of his garbage... I'm moving on....
NEXT!

Hey, if you need somebody to whack on every once in a while, I'm here for 'ya!

(I'll whack back too!)

Author: Missing_kskd
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 7:58 pm


It's pretty easy Trix. He goes to a hate church where everybody mostly does the same hating. They call it sinning so they can feel really good about it on Sunday.

The Pastor there has yet to answer my question on equality. It's the same one posted here. Explains a lot actually.

Best to move on.

I think you need to visit my church if you think there is any hate there. Why do you ask about "equality"? You mean only one thing, gay marriage, and you know it. Nobody in my church wants that. When is gay marriage the antidote for hatred? You won't find many religions besides Christianity that want it either. I think the reason you want gay marriage is that it offends Christians

I'm a Christian and I am not offended by gay marriage. Then again neither is Jesus. He has bigger issues to deal with anyway like hypocrisy, legalism and pride. Those are 1,2 and 3 on the spiritual hit pararde.

Matthiew 19 says that traditional marriage was very important with Jesus:

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

If you notice Jesus did not say male and male he said male and female.

*flush*

Can't really argue with that Chris.

Hey, 30 percent of Evangels voted Democrat this time around! The message is not all bad it seems.

Been doing some reading of the various publications produced at a church mentioned here... It's pretty scary overall. Saw an article the other day that had leading Evangels on a line. At the liberal end was Wallis! The usual suspects were at the other end.

Comparing the writings of the two is just nuts! It's as if there really are two different Gods and a whole lotta Jesuses!


Somebody better than me needs to have a talk with a coupla people here about the same Bible yielding such different spirutual realities and the implication that has on matters of truth, faith and our law...

God and Jesus are one and the same. You may as well deal with it now because it will be much easier than later believe me.

*flush* *flush*

(Can't resist)

Actually Wayne, Matthew said Jesus said. The actual first hand word of God appears NOWHERE in the Bible. Same with Jesus. Nowhere. Go ahead and look for it. Look hard. It's just not there.

That's hearsey. It's not admissible in a court of law because the person thus represented is not involved in the proceedings. It's not defensible to put words into others mouths. That's why we don't allow it in court, but for a few matters of indirect importance.

The reality is that we just don't have God or Jesuses word on that matter, only the words of some people claiming to have first hand experience.

Essentially this all boils down to: Bob seen it happen.

This is hardly a justification for passing laws that restrict the freedoms of our fellow Americans. Our society is a permissive one by design. That means we don't go around telling others how to live their lives, unless we can demonstrate their actions to be harmful beyond a reasonable doubt. On this matter, our founders came to agreement. That's why our legal system, body of law and government was established how it was. Our founders feared what might happen if we allowed 'clerics' to dictate how things go.

Why? Because they all lived it first hand. They had seen enough to know what a free society was all about.

Most reasonable Christians I know put the Bible into context and attempt to get meaning from that. That's at least somewhat scientific and repeatable. It really does not make it all any closer to any concrete truth, but it's a perfectly respectable start.

Given your "proof" is nothing more than hearsey (Bob seen it happen), you've really exposed your bigotry in this matter first hand. Hell, second and third hand too!

If we factor out the non-proof you have offered and factor in your non-acceptance of our equality as humans, we are left with your bigotry toward other people. I gotta tell 'ya Wayner, that really sucks.

Have you ever been married Wayne? Married now?

I'll bet not and assuming that's true. With your views, I'll bet getting a date is damn tough! IMHO, a safe bet. We will see.

Seems to me, having not been married, you've not too much to say about it do you?

This passage is about divorce. Not about gay marraige. The Pharisees were testing several Jewish laws on the matter and wanted to trap Jesus into incriminating statements. He totally shocked them when he quoted Moses.

Also Matthew's passage is probably not the original passage. It is highly thought that he borrowed this from Marks account which is thought to be more accurate and not as flowery.

It sure is about gay marriage. Both pastors Bill Ritchie and Dale Ebel agree on that. The greek bears that out. The point was that marriage is between a man and a female. Its about traditional marriage. Mark 10is also about traditional marriage:

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10

Author: Missing_kskd
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 8:51 pm


(Can't resist)

Actually Wayne, Matthew said Jesus said. The actual first hand word of God appears NOWHERE in the Bible. Same with Jesus. Nowhere. Go ahead and look for it. Look hard. It's just not there.
-----------------
You are 100 percent wrong. Jesus clearly condemns any other kind of marriage but traditional marriage. So does the rest of the Bible.

Wayne, have you ever been married?

Tap, Tap, tappity tap tap tap...

(foot likely to fall off, moving on.)

Are you folks really for gay marriage so bad or do you just say you are because you want to pick a fight? You accuse me of trolling and yet thats all you do!

Been Married Wayne? Currently Married?

Maybe you are gay?

it wouldn't be a bad bet. sadly though, many who publically denounce the gay lifestyle are gay themselves -- rep foley rings a bell. Its tough to be gay when you're a conservative, especially now that they're in the minority. still no excuse for trolling in this forum.

Yep. Agreed. But one does have to wonder...

Could be just somebody who never married too, who knows?

Hey...if it's good enough for Ken Mehlman...

I think you proved my point. Your only reason for supporting gay marriage at all is to pick a fight. Yet you accuse me of trolling because I oppose what is wrong.

Wayne, are you married or have you ever been married?

What's it to you?

I guess a lot if he is asking....

Judging by your answer, obviously you are NOT married and NEVER have been.

Personally, I don't think anyone that has never been married is really qualified to discuss marriage.

Agreed.

Thats like saying that no one who knows how to fly should ride on an airplane!

WTF?!? It's not even close to the same thing.

Let me speculate here and present it as FACT: The troll is either GAY, or no woman wants to be seen near him -- let alone date him, or gasp, marry him. He is too intimidated to even PAY for a woman's company. So he lives as an eunich, ocassionaly getting kicked out of Churches for behaving, well, sort of like he's doing here.

Remember, this is pure speculation, but I'm stating it as FACT.

You are the one thats trolling here Skep. You want to shove gay marriage down our throats and if a church objects its too bad. I was never kicked out of any church.

Author: Skeptical
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 5:02 pm


Let me speculate here and present it as FACT: The troll is either GAY, or no woman wants to be seen near him

You love to troll don't you? I dance with the singles every saturday and have no problem filling out the slow dance cards. Why do you want to push gay marriage down everybody's throats?

There's a reason you're not married. I'm sure you're an even bigger idiot in person than what we read here.

The reason is that I oppose gay marriage, isn't that it? I have never met a woman thats for gay marriage. Being for gay marriage is not the key to being smart. You are pushing your views on others, what you are accusing me of doing. What kind of a relationship do you have with your own wife? If its like anything we see here Pete it must be pretty bad.

I think a big reason why I haven't found anybody is because until now the churches I went to forbade dancing and thought it was evil. But I am doing a lot more of that than before and am having fun. I also had an experience at a church that taught that marriage even between a man and a woman was some kind of a curse from God. I have met some wonderful ladies on the dance floor!

WW said>>>
You want to shove gay marriage down our throats.

And you don't want us all to believe they way you do? Your the one that types Bible babble on here!

My relationship with my wife is great, and so is the sex! I don't have to go to the singles dance at church and hide my hard-on like you do, loser. And both of us agree that same sex couples should be recognized the same as traditional marriage, because we believe in equal rights, unlike you, you bigot.

Your wife must be a man I take it. Either that or she is as much a troll as you are. You only want equal rights for homosexuals and nobody else. Unlike you the singles I dance with oppose gay marriage. I think you are more interested in picking a fight than you are in any kind of "equal rights". You certainly are not for evangel Christians having equal rights.

Traditional Marriage is what it is RECOGNIZED! Who cares what else is recognized! 60% of marriages fail in America. And we don't have GAY MARRIAGE!!! So the other 40% is going to go to hell because we let Gay men and women get married?

My wife is pure woman! 5'3" 110lbs C cup!! God damn, I might have to go roust her right now!! And she's smart, has a master's degree! Much too smart for a dumbass single loser like you!!

You're probably a 63 year old virgin.

My wife is 5'4" 138 LARGE C cup and looks like Delta Burke only skinnier. Grade school teacher and much too smart for Wanyer. She wouldn't want to be barefoot and preggers for him. And not to mention subservient.....

All the money in the world isn't enough to make me slow dance with Wayne.

Maybe we should go undercover to check out this Saturday Dance thing? It's probably waaaaaay weirder than those Unitarians that Wayne's heard about.

What kind of music do they play? Does anyone NOT have white hair or wear polyester?

mrs. m sez: What kind of music do they play?

Lawrance Welk.

"Your wife must be a man I take it. Either that or she is as much a troll as you are. You only want equal rights for homosexuals and nobody else."

Now exactly who in the sam hell are YOU to question someone else's wife in any way, shape or form? You're more of a leech than I thought! My God!

My wife has been reading up on Wayne's drivel as well, she says she wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot cattle prod. I wouldn't let him slow dance with my dog.

My wife's been reading up as well, and she's pissed off, too!

LOL!!!

Dang you, Mrs. M...now I'm the one hidin' a boner.

There you go. Now you and Wayne DO have something in common!

Author: Brianl
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 6:26 am


"Your wife must be a man I take it. Either that or she is as much a troll as you are. You only want equal rights for homosexuals and nobody else."

Now exactly who in the sam hell are YOU to question someone else's wife in any way, shape or form? You're more of a leech than I thought! My God!

My wife has been reading up on Wayne's drivel as well, she says she wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot cattle prod. I wouldn't let him

Believe me I want nothing to do with your wife either. I still think you and the others want to pick a fight more than you care about gay marriage. You are only for it because I am against it

Don't give yourself that much credit.

Gee...thanks for pointing that out.

BTW, now, you can kill me.

"Believe me I want nothing to do with your wife either."

That's good because she has no place for racist, intolerant trolls who hide behind their religion.

Oops, did *I* say that?!?

"Believe me I want nothing to do with your wife either."

And stay away from CJ's sheep, too!

Author: Brianl
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 7:50 pm


"Believe me I want nothing to do with your wife either."

That's good because she has no place for racist, intolerant trolls who hide behind their religion.

Oops, did *I* say that?!?

yes you did. You just admitted you were a troll who hides behind your atheism. You are for gay marriage only because I am against it.

"You just admitted you were a troll who hides behind your atheism. You are for gay marriage only because I am against it."

Wow, I didn't know I was athiest.

I **DO** happen to believe in God. I happen to believe in the same God that you do. I was raised Christian, and I am proud of that.

I have nothing to gain by gays being married other than the fact that I believe that they deserve the same rights and privileges and happiness that I do as a straight person. I would love to see my mother, if she so chose, to find love and be happy for the rest of her life with someone she loves. (BTW, she is Christian too. She goes to a Unitarian church. I'm sorry she isn't as good of a Christian as you.) So, I have my reasons for supporting gay marriage. You have nothing to do with it ... so sorry to disappoint you.

Thanks for ASSUMING I am athiest. You know what they say about people who assume ...

I'm gonna assume Wayne is gay. If you think about it, it really adds up. Church shopped until he found one that was really anti-gay. This reinforces his denial. Never been married. Obsessed with everything gay. Makes a SERIOUS effort to make sure people know he's not gay and that gay people are really sinners, and all that.

It's ok wayner, being gay is no biggie. Plenty of room for you on the left side of the fence. We don't bite! (Well, most of us don't bite hehe...)

Are you gay? I thought you loved gays? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? I thought being gay wasn't a big deal. I guess it is after all isn't it? No I am not gay or I wouldn't be dancing with women on Saturdays.

Author: Brianl
Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 8:24 pm


"You just admitted you were a troll who hides behind your atheism. You are for gay marriage only because I am against it."

Wow, I didn't know I was athiest.

I **DO** happen to believe in God. I happen to believe in the same God that you do. I was raised Christian, and I am proud of that.

I have nothing to gain by gays being married other than the fact that I believe that they deserve the same rights and privileges and happiness that I do as a straight person. I would love to see my mother, if she so chose, to find love and be happy for the rest of her life with someone she loves. (BTW, she is Christian too. She goes to a Unitarian church. I'm sorry she isn't as good of a Christian as you.) So, I have my reasons for supporting gay marriage. You have nothing to do with it ... so sorry to disappoint you.

Thanks for ASSUMING I am athiest. You know what they say about people who assume ...

------'

Well at least you admit you believe in God and thats a positive step. I think you should at least try to understand the religious objection I have toward gay marriage. Apparently you have a hard time with that. I am amazed that you would struggle with that at all if you were raised a Christian. I would think if that were true you had to have heard what the position toward homosexuality that most churches have.I don't really want to change your mind but will you please stop trying to change mine? Thats all that seems to matter here. I think we are arguing in circles and its futle to go any further. I move we go back to the topic at hand. I don't remember gay marriage being the subject of the thread.

WW said>>>
Are you gay? I thought you loved gays? Aren't you being a bit hypocritical? I thought being gay wasn't a big deal. I guess it is after all isn't it? No I am not gay or I wouldn't be dancing with women on Saturdays.

OMG! WTF? This guy is just insane!!! I don't see Herb defending WW now... Herb has got to be hiding somewhere....

I think he is getting tired of this nonsense and would just as soon that we returned to the original topiic at hand. Would you please stop shoving your gay agenda down my throat?

I know. It's hiliarious to see, isn't it? Look at how well crafted it is. Think about what he just said. " I am not gay and the fact that I dance with women on Saturdays proves it."

Look at how much that statement leaves untold. Nevermind that he refuses to deny that he dances with men on Fridays. It's the fact that he dances with women on SATURDAYS that proves it.

Right.

Got it.

It really does make sense. And you'll also note that he never said he has any problem with someone marrying a fax-machine or wind chime. It's marrying ANIMALS that are the logical progression. Which means he's all for some kind of Mormon version of a civil union between a man and the contents of the Office Max catalog. It's not absurd to think that way, according to Wayne. Once all the puppies have had their marriages arranged ( because, come on, it's obvious that they cannot consent and will need that kind of organized structure in order for that to happen ) then we will have to move on to inanimate objects. IT'S THE LOGICAL PROGRESSION! Equal rights! Right? It will HAVE to be that way. NO way around it. No way to PREVENT IT! RIGHT!?!

Then, when I see you dancing with a ho(e) on Tuesday nights, you can tell me that you got her on sale at True Value and you won't be offended when I call a spade and spade. Then Wayne will take me aside to tell me that he thinks his wife is cheating on him. He'll say that he thinks his wife is getting hammered by 12" steel-shafted Stanley.

Then after months of counselling, he'll go back to being gay. It's easier.

But he's still got his eye on a leopard skin seat cover that's been flirting with him. And that seat cover ( Kevin ) gives great back rubs. ( Wayne, you are into the furries, eh? Niiice. Make sexy time! )

I can picture all of this easier than someone wanting to marry an animal. I mean, the wedding invitations alone would look odd;

Wayne is registered at Christian Supply Store.

The Groom, ( Patches ), is registered at PetCo.

And what about shopping for a wedding band? What looks graceful lying against a cloven hoof?

ALL plausable. Perfectly logical. Right? Common sense even.

Ted Haggard was married with children. Does that prove he's not gay?

Gee if you are married does that mean you are not gay, Pete? There are married people who are gay.

And there are people who dance with women on Saturday night a the church nerd dance who are gay too. Face it Wayne, you're a repressed homo.

You are evil too. Without God in your life you are lost, Pete.

I've found my way just fine Wayne. I don't need a crutch like you do to give life meaning.

And, you're still a repressed homo. Just like the guy in the movie "American Beauty."

You are lost without God Pete. You are fooling yourself if you think you are better than I am because you suppport homosexuality only because I am against it.

Wayne, I don't think I'm better than you, I KNOW I'm better than you. I have more education, I have a wife, I have more money, I have more friends, and I have accomplished more than you have in life in half the time. So there.

Guys, all of us fall short. This life is but a season. Without God, there's no point.

Read Luke 9:23-26:

What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very soul?

Herb

Why not Islam? Why not one of the dozens of other religions who all claim to know "the truth" but generally contradict each other?

Andrew

Since this has turned into a biblican season, I've always wondered about different peoples' take on the following questions;

#1. Do you believe that the respective authors of each book in the bible knew that their writings would be compiled into a single book like we have now?

#2. Do you believe, as The Old Testament told of things that would happen later, only to be recorded as The New Testament, that there are ANY books written, or being written, that will record the prophecies of the New Testament?

Author: Reinstatepete
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:40 pm


Wayne, I don't think I'm better than you, I KNOW I'm better than you. I have more education, I have a wife, I have more money, I have more friends, and I have accomplished more than you have in life in half the time. So there.

but you still are lost Pete! It doesn't matter how much money or whatever, you still need God in your life! And you are fooling yourself if you think you are better than me. You see before God's eyes we are all the same. God hates sin but loves the sinner. Ever heard that before? Thats true!

Author: Chickenjuggler
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 3:03 pm


Since this has turned into a biblican season, I've always wondered about different peoples' take on the following questions;

#1. Do you believe that the respective authors of each book in the bible knew that their writings would be compiled into a single book like we have now?

#2. Do you believe, as The Old Testament told of things that would happen later, only to be recorded as The New Testament, that there are ANY books written, or being written, that will record the prophecies

I believe the New Testament is the fullfillment of the Old Testament and that Jesus is why there were sacrifices and with his death they were no longer needed. Good question!

Author: Reinstatepete
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:40 pm


Wayne, I don't think I'm better than you, I KNOW I'm better than you. I have more education, I have a wife, I have more money, I have more friends, and I have accomplished more than you have in life in half the time. So there.

but you still are lost Pete! It doesn't matter how much money or whatever, you still need God in your life! And you are fooling yourself if you think you are better than me. You see before God's eyes we are all the same. God hates sin but loves the sinner. Ever heard that before? Thats true!

Author: Reinstatepete
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:40 pm


Wayne, I don't think I'm better than you, I KNOW I'm better than you. I have more education, I have a wife, I have more money, I have more friends, and I have accomplished more than you have in life in half the time. So there.

but you still are lost Pete! It doesn't matter how much money or whatever, you still need God in your life! And you are fooling yourself if you think you are better than me. You see before God's eyes we are all the same. God hates sin but loves the sinner. Ever heard that before? Thats true!

Author: Andrew2
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:56 pm


Why not Islam? Why not one of the dozens of other religions who all claim to know "the truth" but generally contradict each other?

\\\\\
I have read about Islam and have seen the Koran and their version of truth is vastly different from the Bible.

"I have read about Islam and have seen the Koran and their version of truth is vastly different from the Bible."

Well.....sit down and take a look from a different angle...

I have read about Christianism and have seen the bible and their version of truth is vastly different from the Koran.

Wow...that's how they view christians. Religious differences exist and who are we to say one is right and one is wrong. It is these religious differences along with language barriers that keep everyone from just getting along and living together. If everyone can just get over the fact that differences exist and no one group is superior to the other, (just different), then maybe not so much fighting would take place. Fighting happens when those who think their cause is the only and just cause and try to force their beleifs on others. Instead of tolerance it is better to subjogate and dominate forcibly.

vent....vent....vent....

Beam Me Up Scotty.....

I never said we were any better than Moslems! I thought I made it clear that we were all the same in God's eyes, whether or not those gay activists here define equality. Of course religions are different and that was the point I was trying to make. But some are insisting that we all believe in the same Bible which just isn't true.

Why would the demos want to force a withdrawel, when its their greatest campaign weapon for 2008?

If we leave, its no longer an issue for the libs, except the republicans will be able to accuse the dems of "Losing" Iraq.

Democrats can't force a withdrawl (realistically) from Iraq, but if they show no action and no oversight over the war, they also lose their "biggest issue" which is that they had a different perspective on Iraq in 2006 (and thus one big reason people voted for them). If the Democrats don't seem to have a different approach than the Republicans, then what's the difference to voters?

While Iraq may be the #1 campaign issue in the 2008 presidential election, Bush won't be running in it, and with a 31% approval rating (as of today) on his handling of Iraq, surely the 2008 Republican candidates won't be embracing his position. So it will be two distinct positions competing for approval from the American people.

Andrew

"Guys, all of us fall short. This life is but a season. Without God, there's no point."

Pure speculation with no proof of what you're saying AT ALL. You've been sold a bill of goods, and I ain't buying!

Wayne said - " I believe the New Testament is the fullfillment of the Old Testament and that Jesus is why there were sacrifices and with his death they were no longer needed. Good question!"

Great! What question were you answering? It wasn't mine.

It was my question. I wanted to know if he wanted his car filled up with Hi-Test or Reg-Test. I just went ahead and put diesel fuel in.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:24 pm


Wayne said - " I believe the New Testament is the fullfillment of the Old Testament and that Jesus is why there were sacrifices and with his death they were no longer needed. Good question!"

Great! What question were you answering? It wasn't mine

what were you asking? Did you want a different answer than what I gave? That would sure figure.

Author: Reinstatepete
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 4:59 pm


"Guys, all of us fall short. This life is but a season. Without God, there's no point."

Pure speculation with no proof of what you're saying AT ALL. You've been sold a bill of goods, and I ain't buying!

somehow I doubt if you would buy it even if God sat in the room across from you and explained it to you

Read my questions again. You told me what you thought the New Testament and Old Testament is and what they mean. I'm asking you something else;

#1. Do you believe that the respective authors of each book in the bible knew that their writings would be compiled into a single book like we have now?

I don't know how to make that question any more clear. Do you think they knew it would be complied into a bible?

#2. Do you believe, as The Old Testament told of things that would happen later, only to be recorded as The New Testament, that there are ANY books written, or being written, that will record the prophecies of the New Testament?

Or in other words, do you think there is a third " Testament " being written?

"Guys, all of us fall short. This life is but a season. Without God, there's no point."

"Pure speculation with no proof of what you're saying AT ALL. You've been sold a bill of goods, and I ain't buying!"

That's your call and I respect that. However, if you actually think you're going to make it out of here alive and escape death, you might want to think it through sometime.

As for the rest of us, we realize we'll be meeting our Maker and held accountable for the life we've lived.

Herb

And by the way, I happen to believe everything that I understand about the bible. It met a lot of my criteria for proof - which is long, subjective and even opinion based - but I can't deny that it made a big difference to me for a long time.

To many questions I would say; I don't know if I believe that. But on other levels, I found it to work. For me.

I know it is hypocritical to make it sound like I am picking and choosing which parts to believe. And if I am judged for that, then so be it. There is more to believe in than there is not.

I'll let you know what God thinks when I meet him. I'll send a message back.

Gmail probably.

and no doubt you'll have a bit of explaining to do, God doesn't care for people who call others LOSERS!

You are wrong. God loves everybody. Not just people you agree with.

Author: Chickenjuggler
Friday, November 17, 2006 - 5:55 pm


Read my questions again. You told me what you thought the New Testament and Old Testament is and what they mean. I'm asking you something else;

#1. Do you believe that the respective authors of each book in the bible knew that their writings would be compiled into a single book like we have now?

I don't know how to make that question any more clear. Do you think they knew it would be complied into a bible?

#2. Do you believe, as The Old Testament told of things that would happen later, only to be recorded as The New Testament, that there are ANY books written, or being written, that will record the prophecies of the New Testament?

Or in other words, do you think there is a third " Testament " being written?
--------------
In other words is there a different gospel? I sure don't know of one.You are welcome to believe that if you feel led but its not for me.
Is that what you are asking?

Look, Wayne, it's a simple question;

Do you think the different authors of the bible knew that the words they wrote would be made into a bible?

Yes or no? I'm not asking for you to prove anything. I'm asking what you believe.

You need to rephrase your question because I have answered the best way I know how. Is there a point in the question you are trying to make?
What is it you are asking?

OK - One step at a time then - Who wrote Genesis?

Sounds good. Moses wrote it inspired by God.

OK - now name three other authors from the Old Testament. ( NOT God ).

Sure. David was one, Isaiah and Jeremiah were two others and there were many more of course.

"That's your call and I respect that. However, if you actually think you're going to make it out of here alive and escape death, you might want to think it through sometime."

Once again, idle threats. You believe in magic, I believe in science.

"As for the rest of us, we realize we'll be meeting our Maker and held accountable for the life we've lived."

That comment has the same amount of merit as saying the tooth fairy exists.

Are you afraid of the possibility that when you die, you're just worm food and nothing more? I'm not. But, you are.

OK - next question;

Did Moses, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah all live at the same time?

Of course not. Why do you ask

Pete:
Are you afraid of the possibility that when you die, you're just worm food and nothing more? I'm not. But, you are.
Suppose you decide to believe in God and find out there is no heaven or hell what have you lost? If you said nothing you are right. Suppose you decide not to believe and it turns out that there is a heaven and hell what have you lost? Everything, right? Isn't it a good idea to have that base covered because what if you are wrong? Have you ever considered that someday you might want to believe bit it may be too late?

Hey, why not just take the easy way out?

Get saved, then do whatever you want. Done!

OK - so Wayne - different authors that lived at different times thoughout history made contributions to the bible. Inspired by God.

So here is my question;

Do you think that each of those authors knew that their writings would be complied into being The Old Testament? My guess is " No. They didn't."

I think that would also apply to the various writers of the New Testament.

The Old Testament, when it was complied and learned from as a complete text, was complete for it's day. The operative word being " complete." I fully acknowledge that there were prophecies given in the Old Testament, that came to pass and were recorded in The New Testament. That's a very large part of why we HAVE The New Testament.

There are significant prohecies in The New Testament. I wonder if God has stopped inspiring people to record anything further. Or I wonder if there have been writings recorded, that will later be used for another book. Maybe things have been written and documented or even published, and those authors never dreamed that their text would be used for such a purpose. It's a fascinating thing to wonder about for me. A Third Testament. It's possible.

That's all I was trying to say; I wonder.

uthor: Chickenjuggler
Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 12:44 am


OK - so Wayne - different authors that lived at different times thoughout history made contributions to the bible. Inspired by God.

So here is my question;

Do you think that each of those authors knew that their writings would be complied into being The Old Testament? My guess is " No. They didn't."

When we say that the Bible is inspired by God we mean God-breathed. whether or not the writers knew I can't answer that and we may not know until we get to heaven.


I think that would also apply to the various writers of the New Testament.

The Old Testament, when it was complied and learned from as a complete text, was complete for it's day. The operative word being " complete." I fully acknowledge that there were prophecies given in the Old Testament, that came to pass and were recorded in The New Testament. That's a very large part of why we HAVE The New Testament.

There are significant prohecies in The New Testament. I wonder if God has stopped inspiring people to record anything further. Or I wonder if there have been writings recorded, that will later be used for another book. Maybe things have been written and documented or even published, and those authors never dreamed that their text would be used for such a purpose. It's a fascinating thing to wonder about for me. A Third Testament. It's possible.

That's all I was trying to say; I wonder.

When you say "third Testament" what do you mean exactly? Is it the acophrya like some suggested? I think the question I would have is what would you put there if there is one? The reason why there is an Old and a New Testament is because that is what God felt was necessary to communicate his truth to men. If we are going to keep adding to it don't we risk adding error? That's my main problem with it. As you may know the Mormons have added things to the Bible and we who are evangel Christians have some issues with them theologiclly. I know many who are Mormon and they are nice and caring people.

Thank Goodness those Mormons aren't like those ignorant and awful Homosexuals, Unitarians, "Moslems", Baptists, Buddists, Catholics, Episcopalians, African Americans, Jews, or Pinko-Commies, right?

The polygamy part, well...

And what if they're right about the "added things"?

They just may have the last laugh on you.

I heard they are as against homosexuality as I am.

I asked a long time pastor friend mine a while back about the inspiritation of the bible as in "Inspired Word of God." His insight might be helpful here.



I believe much of the confusion over the status of biblical inspiration is thinking that the expression the Word of God means words of God.

In my Evangelical Free Church upbringing, we were in essence taught that inspiration meant that the Bible was the product of God being the author, and the biblical writers being merely scribes. Actually it wasn't just Evangelical Christians who thought this way, many Orthodox Jews had this picture of the way the Torah was formed. The writers went into kind of a trance and "channeled" God's thoughts through their various means of getting language onto stone, clay tablets, papyri, etc.

Beginning in the 19th c., and first in Germany and later in England and the United States, analysts began to a) learn how closely the the biblical literature resembled literature from virtually all cultures in the Middle East during the times of biblical composition, and b) the ways it appeared that even if some of the embedded stories were ancient, they'd been "massaged" or "edited" over years to reflect various perspectives of significant groups such as priests, the royal court of the Davidic kings, etc.

It further became evident that, even if the original story may have come from a period far removed from the ones working to shape it into its current form, that form was heavily impacted by events that were current at that time such as the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, the Babylonian captivity, etc. Further, even the canon of the Hebrew scriptures (our Christian Old Testament) apparently wasn't finally established until around the time of Christ. The various documents had been circulating for years, but which ones would be included, and in which order, was a fairly "late" decision.

Finally, even with the New Testament documents, it became more and more difficult to believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the Christ event, or that they weren't shaped by the respective authors' hands. Further, it became difficult to imagine that some of the events depicted in the life of Christ were not, in fact, inventions of the authors to serve the faith needs of the communities of faith for which they were writing.

So much for direct Divine inspiration.

So, where does this leave us? With the perspective that while God did not "write" Scripture via stuperous scribes who put down just what they were told, that there was Divine inspiration present in the shaping and preservation of these documents, to and including the final decisions by church councils long after Christ's death as to what should be included in -- or excluded from -- the canon of the New Testament as we have it today.

Further, in Reformed theology, the "magic" is not in the words on the page. They are just words as would exist in any other book. Their Divine Inspiration comes as the Spirit works through the reading of Scripture in the community of faith and in preaching based upon that Scripture. Even when the preacher is known to be a scoundrel, or a lazy exegete, or...., the faith is that God can work through her or his words.

Further, inspiration that merits being called The Word, is not limited to Scripture. Scripture is considered to be the Word written, Jesus is considered to be the Word Incarnate, and the body of Christ -- the Church -- is considered to be the Word lived out in the world as it takes what it has heard and experienced of the faith of the church and lives it day-to-day.

very thoughtful post. I find that I need to be careful about what God speaks to me conforms to what his word says. I found myself feeling that God told me the Republicans were going to win in November but of course that didn't happen. I need to be careful about not depending too much on my feelings because they can lead me astray. I can't see God telling me to steal because there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not steal."

WW said>>>
You are lost without God Pete.

Talk about FORCING your ways on others... Guilt them.....

I would wonder about ANY God that tells people in advance who will win elections. If God actually told anyone this then maybe God is trying to tell YOU something.

Author: Trixter
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 12:03 am


WW said>>>
You are lost without God Pete.

Talk about FORCING your ways on others... Guilt them.....

-------
Thats not forcing, Trix. Forcing is when you insist I agree with you or else.

Author: Trixter
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 12:03 am


WW said>>>
You are lost without God Pete.

Talk about FORCING your ways on others... Guilt them.....

-------
Thats not forcing, Trix. Forcing is when you insist I agree with you or else.

Is anyone else totally creeped out by Wayne's response (above) to Chris? Talk about latent repressed tendencies! Yikes!

It's odd for sure.

To me, it speaks to a personification of his ideology in the form of God. Making sure that all matches up internally is a sort of bizzare self-reinforcement.

Wayne does not seek God for enlightenment, but for reaffirmation!

(Not the way to play it, IMHO.)

Author: Mrs_merkin
Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:38 pm


Is anyone else totally creeped out by Wayne's response (above) to Chris? Talk about latent repressed tendencies! Yikes!

---------
Nobody is forcing here but you and the rest of the secular left. MK's statement proves that too. We either agree or we can't communicate with God. Thats forcing.

Huh? I have no idea what he's talking about.

Wwayner and Herb...
Nobody is forcing here but YOU and the rest of the secular NAZI REICH!

SEIG HILE Wayner! That is your motto REICH???

You are doing the forcing Trix. You and your leftists are the only ones doing the forcing. The only way to NOT force is to agree with you. Thats what the Nazis did if you want to use their terminology.

Revisiting the original idea here: Republican Senators Warner, Graham, Hegel and Defense Sec. Rumsfeld all making noises about getting troops out. I wouldn't say that this thread should be about the Dems, it should be about anyone who cares about a well-executed miliary action.

We will pull back and then out. Everyone will wish it goes better when each step is taken, but it will happen sooner than later, I believe.

I wish I believed that there was the kind of hope that the administration wishes for us to believe - but I don't believe that anymore. And I used to believe exactly what they wanted us to believe. But it was quickly disproven.

Now, we will leave, and it will be terrible. No way around it anymore. Sucks. Royally sucks.

If we leave then Iran will take over and control the oil fields. Do we want Iran in control? They have been supplying arms to the terrorists.

That's why we need a regional solution to this. The Saudis and others have strong feelings about whether Iran goes into Iraq.

If Iran takes over Iraq doesn't that put the Saudis at risk too?

If Iran takes over, we will go to war with Iran. So, I don't expect Iran will attempt something that will end their existance as they know it.

That's why we need a regional solution to this. (Is it me, or is there an echo in here?)

The Saudis are funding TERROR as we speak WW!
OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!

Iran is funding terror too Trix. We don't want them to take over Iraq. Thats what would happen if we pulled our troops out.

Didn't we start the WAR in Iraq?? Didn't we make this mess????

Saddam started the war, when he failed to show his WMD's. You really think America is the enemy and he is the hero don't you Trix? You show your hate for our nation.

Too bad your so UNAmerican WW!
It's sad....

I love America and I love our President. One can do both you know.

"If Iran takes over, we will go to war with Iran. So, I don't expect Iran will attempt something that will end their existance as they know it."

Exactly. And in this case, it would be a truly united effort with the UN, with unilateral support and help. Iran has few friends in the world, and them invading Iraq would not help their cause any.

Thats exactly the reason why we can't pull our troops out cold turkey. We can't go to war with Iran. Thats what will happen if we leave. And the UN won't care, no matter what. The UN wants America to lose the war.