Re: I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight, starting from my elbows....

[Fred^44]

MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:15:13 +0000, Jahnu wrote:
>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much Atheism
>> in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and Krishna
>> tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways at all costs,
>> so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight, starting from my
>> elbows, so that I can serve Krishna in the afterlife for the rest of
>> eternity.
>> After I pass, please do not eat my remains as I know it can be easy to
>> confuse this with the slaughtered animals that many of you are used
>> to murdering, cooking, and eating.
>Slitting your wrists is a lousy way to commit suicide.

Not if you do it right. Cut parallel, not laterally, and you'll do fine.

I recommend it for all rightards who are crying now that America won the
election.

[MarkA]

True, but you have to be right over the artery to hit it. I'm not sure
the average rightard has the requisite motor skills to do it right.

Another good way to open an artery is to drive your car into a bridge
abutment at about 60 mph. The rapid deceleration, if it doesn't turn your
brain into mush (it may), peels your aorta off the back wall of your
thorax, and often makes a rip in the aorta in the process. If you want to
bleed out FAST, tearing your aorta is the way to go!

The GSW to the head is still the preferred method. It leaves your other
organs undamaged, so they can be transplanted into liberals, atheists, and
other deserving people.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 7, 8:23 pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:47:32 +0000, Fred^44 wrote:
> > MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:15:13 +0000, Jahnu wrote:
> >>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
> >>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and
> >>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways at
> >>> all costs, so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight,
> >>> starting from my elbows, so that I can serve Krishna in the afterlife
> >>> for the rest of eternity.
> >>> After I pass, please do not eat my remains as I know it can be easy to
> >>> confuse this with the slaughtered animals that many of you are used to
> >>> murdering, cooking, and eating.
> >>Slitting your wrists is a lousy way to commit suicide.
>
> > Not if you do it right. Cut parallel, not laterally, and you'll do fine.
>
> > I recommend it for all rightards who are crying now that America won the
> > election.
>
> True, but you have to be right over the artery to hit it.  I'm not sure
> the average rightard has the requisite motor skills to do it right.

A diagonal slash would be a good compromise, and HAS to
hit something vital. Blade should be hollow ground, honed to a
20 degree bevel, 25 degree microbevel, and stropped to remove
the last trace of wire edge.

> Another good way to open an artery is to drive your car into a bridge
> abutment at about 60 mph.  The rapid deceleration, if it doesn't turn your
> brain into mush (it may), peels your aorta off the back wall of your
> thorax, and often makes a rip in the aorta in the process.  If you want to
> bleed out FAST, tearing your aorta is the way to go!

http://www.approvalpowersports.com/custompage2.asp?pg=cheap-crotch-rockets

Top off with a hypo full of meth.

[deep]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:20:27 -0500, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

For Republicans wishing to end it all, be sure to not point the gun at
your temple. The bullet can pass through your sinuses and not be
fatal. Put the barrel in your mouth, pointing up towards the top of
your head. Can't miss that way.

Or you could always Jim Jones it and take a whole lot of your friends
and church members with you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>For Republicans wishing to end it all, be sure to not point the gun at
>your temple. The bullet can pass through your sinuses and not be
>fatal. Put the barrel in your mouth, pointing up towards the top of
>your head. Can't miss that way.

In your case it wouldn't hit anything vital.

[Dakota]

On 11/7/2012 7:20 PM, MarkA wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:47:32 +0000, Fred^44 wrote:
>
>> MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:15:13 +0000, Jahnu wrote:
>>>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
>>>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and
>>>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways at
>>>> all costs, so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight,
>>>> starting from my elbows, so that I can serve Krishna in the afterlife
>>>> for the rest of eternity.
>>>> After I pass, please do not eat my remains as I know it can be easy to
>>>> confuse this with the slaughtered animals that many of you are used to
>>>> murdering, cooking, and eating.
>>> Slitting your wrists is a lousy way to commit suicide.
>>
>> Not if you do it right. Cut parallel, not laterally, and you'll do fine.
>>
>> I recommend it for all rightards who are crying now that America won the
>> election.
>
> True, but you have to be right over the artery to hit it. I'm not sure
> the average rightard has the requisite motor skills to do it right.
>
> Another good way to open an artery is to drive your car into a bridge
> abutment at about 60 mph. The rapid deceleration, if it doesn't turn your
> brain into mush (it may), peels your aorta off the back wall of your
> thorax, and often makes a rip in the aorta in the process. If you want to
> bleed out FAST, tearing your aorta is the way to go!
>

Anyone considering this method should remember to unfasten their
seatbelt before they hit the road.

>
> The GSW to the head is still the preferred method. It leaves your other
> organs undamaged, so they can be transplanted into liberals, atheists, and
> other deserving people.
>

Doing so right outside an emergency room and with a living will in a
conspicuous nearby location would help to ensure that the organs would
be removed in time to save them. Just before pulling the trigger, a
quick call to 911 advising them of your intent and location would be
helpful as well.

[linuxgal]

Kirby Grant wrote:

> The problem with that last bit is that Republicans are seldom that
> courteous. They tend to only thing about themselves.

You post on alt.atheism, so presumably you are rational, yet you succumb
to the irrational impulse of assigning attributes to wide swaths of
individual people based on their preferred political party. But then
again, I just remembered, Jason and Duke also post on alt.atheism.

--
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade

[Fred^44]

MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:47:32 +0000, Fred^44 wrote:
>> MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:15:13 +0000, Jahnu wrote:
>>>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
>>>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and
>>>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways at
>>>> all costs, so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight,
>>>> starting from my elbows, so that I can serve Krishna in the afterlife
>>>> for the rest of eternity.
>>>> After I pass, please do not eat my remains as I know it can be easy to
>>>> confuse this with the slaughtered animals that many of you are used to
>>>> murdering, cooking, and eating.
>>>Slitting your wrists is a lousy way to commit suicide.
>> Not if you do it right. Cut parallel, not laterally, and you'll do fine.
>> I recommend it for all rightards who are crying now that America won the
>> election.
>True, but you have to be right over the artery to hit it. I'm not sure
>the average rightard has the requisite motor skills to do it right.

They're not allowed to look things up on the Internet so they'll have
to try to muddle through with the usual rightarded incompetence. If
they show up in my ER I'll help 'em finish it. LOL. Least I could do.

>Another good way to open an artery is to drive your car into a bridge
>abutment at about 60 mph. The rapid deceleration, if it doesn't turn your
>brain into mush (it may), peels your aorta off the back wall of your
>thorax, and often makes a rip in the aorta in the process. If you want to
>bleed out FAST, tearing your aorta is the way to go!

ROFL! I'd buy that for a Dollar. So long as the rightard does not take
out innocent, normal people while doing it.

>The GSW to the head is still the preferred method. It leaves your other
>organs undamaged, so they can be transplanted into liberals, atheists, and
>other deserving people.

What's amusing is that rightards are going to cry for the next 4 years
and then after that when Hillary is in office, another 8 years. They
all godda kill themselves *now* to avoid all that pain.

[Fred^44]

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 8:23=A0pm, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:47:32 +0000, Fred^44 wrote:
>>> MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:15:13 +0000, Jahnu wrote:
>>>>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
>>>>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and

>>>>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways a=

>>>>> all costs, so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight,
>>>>> starting from my elbows, so that I can serve Krishna in the afterlife
>>>>> for the rest of eternity.

>>>>> After I pass, please do not eat my remains as I know it can be easy t=
>>>>> confuse this with the slaughtered animals that many of you are used t=

>>>>> murdering, cooking, and eating.
>>>>Slitting your wrists is a lousy way to commit suicide.

>>> Not if you do it right. Cut parallel, not laterally, and you'll do fine=
>>> I recommend it for all rightards who are crying now that America won th=
>>> election.
>> True, but you have to be right over the artery to hit it. =A0I'm not sure

>> the average rightard has the requisite motor skills to do it right.
>A diagonal slash would be a good compromise

Rightards don't compromise. It's their way or nothing, even if it
destroys the country.

[Fred^44]

deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote:

>For Republicans wishing to end it all, be sure to not point the gun at your temple.

Wrong! The bullet must pass through their rectums if you want them to
scramble their brain.

[BroilJAB]

In Ohio alone, FOX News has reported over 4000 cases of Obama Voter
Fraud. In the northern neck of Virginia, over 50,000 Democrats were
registered...who were dead. In Broward and Palm Beach FLA, countless
thousands of illegals were brought to the polls.

[Fred^44]

Don Martin <drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:08:45 -0500, WangoTango
><Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>In article <XnsA1047CA8612...@94.75.214.39>,
>>Jahn...@gamail.com says...

>>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
>>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and

>>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul from your corrupt ways at

>>> all costs, so I'm going to slit both my wrists very deeply tonight,

>>Why would you want to do that?
>>You won't be able to come here and give me shit anymore.
>>I hope this is just a line of BS, because there is definitely no reason
>>to harm yourself.
>I have seen the way he "thinks." He has very good reason to do
>himself harm.

Woah. That remark is cutting.

[Fred^44]

Samuel Harrigon <samha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Davej <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ac25e385-72ea-4b92-b460-
>6552b3...@q16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

>> On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
>>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
>>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and

>>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul...
>> Souls are imaginary. Sounds like this Krishna fellow has a whole
>> collection of fairy tales. If you believe in good then do good. Don't
>> do things that are silly and wasteful.
>You should all be ashamed of yourselves! You're all acting like agents of Lucifer

According to Classic Christanic mythologies, Lucifer was an agent of
the Christanic gods, he weighed people's "souls" against a white
feather and, if found lacking, escorted the "souls" to Nefeilheim's
domain for the dead.

Some day some rightard somewhere will actually learn what the
origins of his death cult actually are.

[Uirgil]

In article
<f343fbf1-0ac0-4c46...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:

> In Ohio alone, FOX News has Lied over 4000 Times.

They \must be slowing down then.

[RD Sandman]

BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote in news:f343fbf1-0ac0-4c46-
9e9a-f4a...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:

And your cite is????????

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 9, 5:53 pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:

Hack off the whole hand, then. No way to miss.

[Malygris]

Kirby Grant wrote:

> Look, I'm not a religious person at all, but I at least know the history
> of xtianity and judaism.
>
> Lucifer was never an "agent". That would be absurd to even think about.
> Lucifer was classified as a "son of god" and many myths describe
> him/her/it as one of the spiritual enties that stood "before the face of
> god". However, Lucifer was corrupted and attempted to usurp the power of
> god and was therefore cast out of the presence of god into a state known
> as "hell" or "hades" depending on what language tradition is followed.
> Lucifer was never given charge to judge the souls of humanity - that power
> is reserved for the kabbalistic entity known as Ein Soph because it occurs
> at a level that is outside the realm of human experience and exist solely
> on a spiritual plain.

I think it's important to distinguish between the later concept of Lucifer
as the fallen angel and the older bibilical figure of Satan, the son of god.
The figures embody two totally different paradigms.

> As I said, I am not religious. Religion is a fools game. But I do have a
> good understanding of spiritual principles that have nothing to do with
> religions invented by humanity.

Yeah, you don't know much of man-made religion if you think Fred's text can
be in any way serious - it's an absurd mix of two non-christian myths. Quite
funny, actually.

--
Malygris

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>I wish people would stop using the term "angel" in reference to Lucifer.

I wish you knew what the fuck you were talking about.

Any chance of that happening soon?

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:M3uns.2540$aK1....@fe49.iad...

> I wish people would stop using the term "angel" in reference to Lucifer.

Why? He is the Angel of Light.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:11:38 GMT, "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>On 10-Nov-2012, "Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com>
>wrote at alt.atheism:

>But that has always been a misnomer. Someone wrote that down once and others
>repeated it. As far as we humans can ever know, Lucifer is simply some type
>of spiritual emanation from Ein Soph. To label the position of Lucifer as an
>angel is to misunderstand the hierarchy of spiritual entities.

Lucifer means "bringer [carrier] of light" and closely parallels
Prometheus.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>

>On 10-Nov-2012, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote at
>alt.atheism:

>You apparently don't know anything about the subject.

So the answer to the question is, apparently, "No."

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Regardless of where their brains are located (if they have any at all - most
>Republicans are lacking in that area) pointing a gun at one's temple and
>pulling the trigger is not particularly a sure-fire (pun aside) way to
>commit suicide because there is a relatively good chance of surviving such
>an action unless the bullet is of the type that immediately fragments and
>scatters throughout the cranium. What can happen, and there are recorded
>instances of this, is that the individuals might effectively perform a
>pre-frontal lobotomy at a fraction of the price that it could be done in a
>hospital operating room.

Yeah, I have seen that come through my ER from time to time, though it
is really rare, maybe one failed suicide attemp using a bullet to the
head once evbery 3 years or so. I don't know what it is, but even the
ME's office does not get many successful suicides with bullets through
the head.

Murders aplenty, suicides, no.

We have to give rightards free instruction booklets when they pick up
their guns from now on.

[Fred^44]

LOL. No. But I did enjoy wayching Karl Rove trying to demand that his
unsuccessful. efforts at committing treason atgainst us was all due to
voter fraud. :) Amusing.

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Look, I'm not a religious person at all, but I at least know the history of
>xtianity and judaism.
>Lucifer was never an "agent".

He was an angel, a messenger of the gods, plus "Satan" was the son
of Jesus in some ways, and Satan and Lucifer were confounded, so one
could say that they were in fact agents of the gods, they did the bidding
of the gods.

>That would be absurd to even think about.
>Lucifer was classified as a "son of god"

Except that some Christanics -- not all -- actualy *do* think that he
was Jesus' brother which would make Lucifer/Satan a son of the gods.

Hell, there are variants of Christianity that make Jesus just one son
out of an uncontable number of sons birthed by their "father" gods like
we see in the Mormon hate cult.

I think we could easily make the case that Lucifer is/was an agent of
the Christanic gods.

[Fred^44]

Malygris <Highlan...@gmx.de> wrote:

>I think it's important to distinguish between the later concept of Lucifer
>as the fallen angel and the older bibilical figure of Satan, the son of god.
>The figures embody two totally different paradigms.

There-in lay the issue, there have been a large number of adversary
entities in the "spiritual world," some of which are good, some of
which are evil, some of which are neutral -- such as Lucifer used to
be when weighing souls against a white feather.

The mythological constructs become so entwined not only among themselves
but also with the realms the rule over (such as the Goddess Hel) that
even Lucifer lost his core attributes: which is the bringer of knowledge,
something with current Christanic cultists try to avoid thinking about.

[Fred^44]

Kirby is mildly wrong. The Lucifer/Satan construct is an angel in the
classical Christanic mythologies, and it is also the brother of the
Jesus demi-god in some Christanic brand names like in the Mormon
brand of Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Lucifer is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word ??????
in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêle-l or heylel, occurs
only once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-influenced
Strong's Concordance means "shining one, morning star, Lucifer". [1]

The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[2] which translates
?????? as lucifer,[3][4] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus"
(or, as an adjective, "light-bringing"),[5] The Septuagint renders ??????
in Greek as ????????[6][7] (heo-sphoros),[8][9][10] a name, literally
"bringer of dawn", for the morning star.[11]

Kaufmann Kohler says that the Greek Septuagint translation is
"Phosphoros".[2]

Before the rise of Christianity, the pseudepigrapha of Enochic Judaism,
which enjoyed much popularity during the Second Temple period,[12] gave
Satan an expanded role. They interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 as applicable to
Satan, and presented him as a fallen angel cast out of Heaven.[13]

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 10-Nov-2012, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote at
>alt.atheism:

>You apparently don't know anything about the subject. I do. Sit down and learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

You were saying?

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 10-Nov-2012, "Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com>
>wrote at alt.atheism:

>But that has always been a misnomer. Someone wrote that down once and others
>repeated it.

ROFL! Welcome to how religions are created, Kirby! Like it or not, the
Lucifer angel is an angel because that's the way religions are created
and change over time. That *you* don't agree is irrelevant.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <MIidncZJ7eavwT3N...@posted.sonicnet>,

No. Not voter fraud.

Voter suppression, in that negative ads against Romney suppressed the
vote.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
>On 11-Nov-2012, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote at
>alt.suicide:

>And rightfully so. But even still, Romney had no chance of winning right
>from the start. He represents a small minority of America

LOL

You guys never could count, could you?

[Scout]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oK6os.2947$jx1....@fe13.iad...

>
> On 11-Nov-2012, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote at
> alt.suicide:
>

> And rightfully so. But even still, Romney had no chance of winning right

> from the start. He represents a small minority of America and America
> showed
> that they simply were not interested in having someone like him be
> president.

Hmmm.. If you consider 47.9% of the voting population to be a "small
minority" one has to wonder what you would consider a large minority.

After all, I hardly think you can call some 59 million people to be a small
minority in America.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

It's all part of the Leftist Newspeak campaign.

[linuxgal]

Kirby Grant wrote:

> No, it is not. Those who use the term "angel" are mistaken and it has been
> perpetuated for years mistakenly.

In the beginning God is said to have walked and talked with Adam and Eve
in the garden. He is said to have spoken with Cain and Noah and Abraham
and to have wrestled Jacob. These stories are unseemly when this God is
compared to the majestic supreme being he eventually evolved into, but
they were perfectly in tune with parallel stories of other gods like
Baal and Marduk, belonging to the surrounding tribes.

As the Jewish priesthood put the final touches on their newly ineffable
God, they had the new stories say he only appeared in dreams (like to
Jacob and Joseph and Samuel). By the time he appeared to Moses it was
only as the "angel of the LORD", which is not an angel with wings, but
an avatar of God, a kind of probe, like Ilia for V'GER. God had isolated
himself from humanity by a layer where a mere symbol (in this case a
burning bush) represented his divinity.

But how to explain the embarrasing existing stories like when God
appeared to Abraham at Mamre and Sarah laughed at him? Well, those
were just angels, see. Humanoid versions of the burning bush. And then
there developed a vast angelology, and corresponding demonology, with
nearly all of it outside of the scriptures. But none of that matters
because Christians like Jason and Duke don't actually read the
scriptures, they just spit out random selections from a very small set
of passages, as though they were an IRC script.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[RD Sandman]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:oK6os.2947$jx1....@fe13.iad:

>
> On 11-Nov-2012, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote at
> alt.suicide:
>

> And rightfully so. But even still, Romney had no chance of winning
> right from the start. He represents a small minority of America and
> America showed that they simply were not interested in having someone
> like him be president.
>

Their difference in the popular vote was less than 2.5%. So much for
your "small minority".

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k7qtgn$60r$1...@dont-email.me:

Newer count shows Romney won 48.74% of the vote and Obama won 51.26%. A
difference of about 2.5%

> After all, I hardly think you can call some 59 million people to be a
> small minority in America.

Isn't that about the number of people waiting to use the johns at
halftime at the Super Bowl? At least it seems so.

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 11-Nov-2012, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote at
>alt.suicide:

>And rightfully so. But even still, Romney had no chance of winning right
>from the start. He represents a small minority of America and America showed
>that they simply were not interested in having someone like him be
>president.

Some 54 million idiots voted for the guy only because Obama is black.

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No, it is not. Those who use the term "angel" are mistaken and it has been
>perpetuated for years mistakenly.

No, Lucifer has been an angel for over 1,000 years. That *you* don't
like the fact is irrelevant. Welcome to religion. Right up the ass, huh?

[Mitchell Holman]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
news:XnsA109709DF...@216.196.121.131:

Compare and contrast to Bush gloating about
his "mandate" after LOSING the popular vote.


Gore 50,999,897 48.38%
Bush 50,456,002 47.87%

[Scout]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA109D42B155E...@216.196.121.131...

1) The issue is the claim of a "small minority" being disproven
2) Popular vote does not and never has elected our President.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:k7t9gb
$l75$1...@dont-email.me:

Tell that to RD Sandman and his posts
about Romney/Obama percentage of the popular
vote.

[Scout]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:bNros.38012$FI.3...@fed01.iad...

> I realize you revel in stupidity from time to time, but you simply don't
> know what you are talking about. Conventional knowledge that applies the
> term "angel" to Lucifer is mistaken.

Actually the term used in talking about Lucifer is cherub.

So while technically the term 'angel' is never used directly to describe
Lucifer, the term that is used is only used in every other passage as a
descriptor when talking about angels. It's not hard to connect the dots.
However, if it makes you happy to think conventional knowledge is wrong,
more power to you, but I fail to see any conclusive evidence from you
showing that. Meanwhile there does seem to be evidence to support the
conventional wisdom.

[Scout]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA10A4B75A20B0...@216.196.121.131...

Why?

He's right, the difference between the majority, and what you claim as a
"small minority" is only about 2.5%
He's also stated that popular vote isn't what elects the President. So I'm
not sure exactly what it is you think I should be telling him.

Seems your "small minority" isn't as small as you would like to imply, nor
does it matter if the candidate wins the popular vote or not.

Oh, and I note you have yet to contest either of us in pointing that out to
you.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k7ti7q$753$1...@dont-email.me:

Obama won both the electoral AND popular vote.

Fact.

> He's also stated that popular vote isn't what elects the President.

Then why did he bring up the popular vote
percentage at all?

[Scout]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA10A50DE446BD...@216.196.121.131...

So?

Does that automatically make the opposition a "small minority"?

I think not.

>> He's also stated that popular vote isn't what elects the President.
>
>
> Then why did he bring up the popular vote
> percentage at all?

To contest and refute your assertion that it was only a "small minority".

Something you have yet to address. Why is that?

You don't want to admit the minority was pretty damn large?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:oK6os.2947$jx1....@fe13.iad:
>
>>
>> On 11-Nov-2012, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote at
>> alt.suicide:
>>
>>> In article <MIidncZJ7eavwT3N...@posted.sonicnet>,
>>> rep...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:
>>>
>>> > BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>>> > >In Ohio alone, FOX News has reported over 4000 cases of Obama
>>> > >Voter Fraud. In the northern neck of Virginia, over 50,000
>>> > >Democrats were registered...who were dead. In Broward and Palm
>>> > >Beach FLA, countless thousands of illegals were brought to the
>>> > >polls.
>>> >
>>> > LOL. No. But I did enjoy wayching Karl Rove trying to demand that
>>> > his unsuccessful. efforts at committing treason atgainst us was all
>>> > due to voter fraud. :) Amusing.
>>>
>>> No. Not voter fraud.
>>>
>>> Voter suppression, in that negative ads against Romney suppressed the
>>> vote.
>>>
>>
>> And rightfully so. But even still, Romney had no chance of winning
>> right from the start. He represents a small minority of America and
>> America showed that they simply were not interested in having someone
>> like him be president.
>>
>
>Their difference in the popular vote was less than 2.5%. So much for
>your "small minority".

1836.

James Monroe v. Virtually Nobody

228 out of 231 electoral votes

80.61% of the popular vote.

Now THERE was a "landslide."

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I realize you revel in stupidity from time to time, but you simply don't
>know what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

Woops! The irghtard was saying? Shut your yipper right up, huh.

[Scout]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7vvos.65973$Hd6....@fed12.iad...
>
> On 13-Nov-2012, "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote

> There is no evidence that Lucifer was an "angel". Or cherub. None
> whatsoever. All of it is based on bad translations and statements of dogma
> and doctrine that cannot be supported from known facts.
>
> The only term, in English language usage, that can be applied to Lucifer
> is
> "spiritual entitity". That is all we can ever really know. Even the name
> Lucifer is a fabrication that was used because that entity needed to be
> named in some sort of manner that could be recognized.

So what other "spiritual entities" does the Bible refer to other than
Lucifer which isn't considered an angel?

Oh, and I'm going to expect to see some sort of support for those claims
above you're throwing around.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 11, 9:21 pm, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote:
> "Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >On  9-Nov-2012, repo...@scientology.org (Fred^44) wrote at alt.atheism:
> >> Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:ac25e385-72ea-4b92-b460-
> >> >6552b3acf...@q16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, Jahnu <Jahnud...@gamail.com> wrote:
> >> >>> I've been feeling really depressed lately because there's too much
> >> >>> Atheism in this world. This cruel world is beginning to tempt me, and
> >> >>> Krishna tells me that I must protect my soul...
> >> >> Souls are imaginary. Sounds like this Krishna fellow has a whole
> >> >> collection of fairy tales. If you believe in good then do good. Don't
> >> >> do things that are silly and wasteful.
> >> >You should all be ashamed of yourselves! You're all acting like agents of
> >> >Lucifer
> >> According to Classic Christanic mythologies, Lucifer was an agent of
> >> the Christanic gods, he weighed people's "souls" against a white
> >> feather and, if found lacking, escorted the "souls" to Nefeilheim's
> >> domain for the dead.
> >> Some day some rightard somewhere will actually learn what the
> >> origins of his death cult actually are.
> >Look, I'm not a religious person at all, but I at least know the history of
> >xtianity and judaism.
> >Lucifer was never an "agent".
>
> He was an angel, a messenger of the gods, plus "Satan" was the son
> of Jesus in some ways, and Satan and Lucifer were confounded, so one
> could say that they were in fact agents of the gods, they did the bidding
> of the gods.
>
> >That would be absurd to even think about.
> >Lucifer was classified as a "son of god"
>
> Except that some Christanics -- not all -- actualy *do* think that he
> was Jesus' brother which would make Lucifer/Satan a son of the gods.
>
> Hell, there are variants of Christianity that make Jesus just one son
> out of an uncontable number of sons birthed by their "father" gods like
> we see in the Mormon hate cult.
>
> I think we could easily make the case that Lucifer is/was an agent of
> the Christanic gods.

He's kept them in business for all of these years.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:k7tnhb
$7sr$1...@dont-email.me:

Read the notestream. I never said anything
about "small minority".

>
>
>>> He's also stated that popular vote isn't what elects the President.
>>
>>
>> Then why did he bring up the popular vote
>> percentage at all?
>
> To contest and refute your assertion that it was only a "small
minority".
>

Read the headers. I didn't post ANYTHING here
until he brought up the popular vote numbers.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:k7t9gb$l75$1...@dont-email.me...

It still means that Dumbya was less popular than Al Fucking Gore.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message

news:k7tnhb$7sr$1...@dont-email.me...

I was just a kid, but I remember the Repubs claiming they had a "mandate"
after the 2004 election. So that means Obama has a bigger mandate.

[Jason]

In article <k7updo$1sv$1...@dont-email.me>, "Zacharias Mulletstein"

I do to--and the democrats in Congress did not roll over. They tried to
block everything the republicans in Congress wanted to do.

[Fred^44]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 13-Nov-2012, "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote at
>alt.atheism:

Look at the little bitch *still* crying because his "Lucifer" angel
is an angel whether he likes it or not. He sees how religions are created
and how they change over time and it just irritates his rectum no end. LOL.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-13111...@66-53-223-254.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
the Supreme Court.

And the result was bigger government, more unemployment,
a stock market collapse, the return to massive deficits, and
hatred from the rest of the world.

And you are proud of that?







Under Bush, Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years
June 24, 2004

"Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S.
federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8%
(19.7% in real dollars)-with non-defense discretionary
growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)-the highest
rate of federal government growth since the presidencies
of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has
resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history,
an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone.
Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a
conservative estimate, since it doesn't include at least
$50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies
in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription
drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the
defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending,
George W. Bush has demonstrated that "limited government"
is not part of his political vocabulary."

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-13111...@66-53-223-254.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com...

As they should have.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k7v4l3$lul$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jason doesn't seem to understand the difference between blocking things
that will hurt the country and what the Republicans have done--they've
blocked all the things that would help the country.

Not the same thing at all.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Scout]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA10ABBFD5857E...@216.196.121.131...

Just because you want to change the subject, doesn't mean everyone else has
to let you do so.

The subject was the issue of the claim about the "small minority" and you
decided to jump in with a comment attempting to change the subject.

He returned to the subject.

If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you find a thread that is
discussing what you want to talk about instead of trying to highjack
another.

[Scout]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in message
news:k7upc0$1lr$1...@dont-email.me...

Agreed, and your point is, what exactly?

[Scout]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in message

news:k7updo$1sv$1...@dont-email.me...

The winner of an election always claims to have a mandate.....

Are you telling me you believe them?

[Scout]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-302049...@news.giganews.com...

You mean like how the job's bills are currently stalled in the Democrat
controlled Senate?

> Not the same thing at all.

Sure it is, but you don't seem to mind it when it's the other way around.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:k8056o$j15$1...@dont-email.me:

Huh?

I didn't change the subject, I RESPONDED
to the subject.

>
> The subject was the issue of the claim about the "small minority" and
> you decided to jump in with a comment attempting to change the
> subject.

He made a claim about vote percentages,
I responded with a post about vote percentages.

How is that "changing the subject?"

[Scout]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA10B565EDF885...@216.196.121.131...

Then you now where "small minority" fits into things. So quit complaining
that you didn't say it.

>> The subject was the issue of the claim about the "small minority" and
>> you decided to jump in with a comment attempting to change the
>> subject.
>
>
> He made a claim about vote percentages,
> I responded with a post about vote percentages.

Except that your vote percentages had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Thus my response to you about your percentages, unless you are attempting to
assert that Kirby's comments about Romney somehow have anything to do with
the Bush/Gore election.

If they don't...then you were attempting to change the subject.

> How is that "changing the subject?"

Simple. The Bush/Gore election has absolutely NOTHING to do with Kirby's
comment about the "small minority" that Romney represents.

As such your response had nothing to do with the subject.

Since then you've been bitching that no one is paying attention to what you
said. Now you know why that is the case.


For example.

Say someone makes a stupid comment that bugs don't eat apples.
Someone posts data that shows that bugs do eat apples.
You respond with data that bugs eat oranges.

Now, what does your reply have to do with the subject of whether bugs eat or
don't eat apples?

Answer: Nothing.

Doesn't matter that you both posted data about bugs eating fruit. Because
the fruit being eaten IS relevant data.

Apple Data = relevant
Orange Data = irrelevant.

So returning to the topic at hand.

Obama/Romney data = relevant
Bush/Gore = irrelevant.

Are you clear on why I'm saying you're attempting to change the subject, and
why the issue of the "small minority" is relevant whether you personally
talked about it or not?

[Gray Guest]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:

> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
> the Supreme Court.

And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the envy of
the modern world.

And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.

They are gonna bulldoze your corpse into a mass grave just like the NVA.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Mitchell Holman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>> the Supreme Court.
>
> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the envy of
> the modern world.
>

Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.

> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>

Just thousands of other Americans killed.



Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098

[Gray Guest]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:

Mitchie, your reputation far preceeds you.

My only real question is have you reproduced? We need to stop your
particular contagion.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100...

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>> the Supreme Court.
>
> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the envy of
> the modern world.
>
> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.

But we had 9/11. Let me guess: you're going to blame that one on Willie.

[Mitchell Holman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in

news:XnsA10C3DFA74Wer...@88.198.244.100:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
>>> envy of the modern world.
>>>
>>
>> Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>>
>>
>> Just thousands of other Americans killed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098
>>

Proud of that, are you?

>>
>
> Mitchie, your reputation far preceeds you.
>
> My only real question is have you reproduced? We need to stop your
> particular contagion.
>

My contribution to the gene pool is safe and growing.

Isn't it time for you to find another anonymous
handle to hide behind? You have pretty much worn out your
credibility





with this one.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in

news:k82906$d12$1...@dont-email.me:

Nov 4, 2008: The day everything went from being
Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.

[RD Sandman]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:

> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>> the Supreme Court.
>>
>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the envy
>> of the modern world.
>>
>
> Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.

2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6
2011 8.9

>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>
>
> Just thousands of other Americans killed.

Seems that is continuing under Obama. Oh, wait.....that is in the "right
war".

> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098

Almost 3000 of those in NYC.

[RD Sandman]

"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:07aps.149852$773....@fed11.iad:

>
> On 15-Nov-2012, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote at
> alt.atheism:

>
>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:
>>
>> > Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>> > news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>> >> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>> >>
>> >>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>> >>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>> >>> the Supreme Court.
>> >>
>> >> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
>> >> envy of the modern world.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.
>>
>> 2000 4.0
>> 2001 4.7
>> 2002 5.8
>> 2003 6.0
>> 2004 5.5
>> 2005 5.1
>> 2006 4.6
>> 2007 4.6
>> 2008 5.8
>> 2009 9.3
>> 2010 9.6
>> 2011 8.9
>>
>

> So what we can know from this is that Dubya started a trend that was
> already in motion by the time that President Obama took office and
> Dubya had set up a scoarched earth policy such that the trend was
> guaranteed to continue.

Interesting that Democrats held control of both houses of Congress and
had since the 2006 elections. That would have had them in charge for two
years before your messiah took office. They and Obama had control of our
whole government from then until the 2010 elections.

Through massive effort President Obama's
> policies have finally started to reverse the trend, but there had been
> so much damage done during the Dubya years that it simply could not be
> reversed in just a few years. It will take us decades to undo all of
> the damage done by Dubya.

Bullshit......most of that started with deregulation that started back in
1980 with the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control
Act and continued until 1999 with Gramm-Leach-Bliley which was signed by
Clinton in a Rose Garden ceremony.

And when the Democrats took over Congress in that 2006 election, Barney
Frank and Chris Dodd became the overseers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
in their repective positions and Chairmen of the House and Senate Finance
Committees.

You need to learn some history without your blinders on.

RD

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <XnsA10D7EEB8...@216.196.121.131>,

And you desperately need to read "Griftopia".

[Gray Guest]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in
news:k82906$d12$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>

Pretty much. Democrats are a death cult. So die and leave us out of it.

[Gray Guest]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10C4A5B4D35F...@216.196.121.131:

Ya mean like the nigger keeps blaming Bush?

[Gray Guest]

Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10C4A1EC762B...@216.196.121.131:

> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA10C3DFA74Wer...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
>>>> envy of the modern world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just thousands of other Americans killed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
>>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098
>>>
>
>
> Proud of that, are you?

You ain't seen nothing yet, chuckles.

>
>>>
>>
>> Mitchie, your reputation far preceeds you.
>>
>> My only real question is have you reproduced? We need to stop your
>> particular contagion.
>>
>
>
> My contribution to the gene pool is safe and growing.

Are they as stupid and evil as you?

> Isn't it time for you to find another anonymous
> handle to hide behind? You have pretty much worn out your
> credibility with this one.
>

Mithcie baby, I was reading about you before I even saw your name.

[Mitchell Holman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in

news:XnsA10CCBEAC34ABWe...@88.198.244.100:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10C4A1EC762B...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10C3DFA74Wer...@88.198.244.100:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
>>>>> envy of the modern world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just thousands of other Americans killed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
>>>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Proud of that, are you?
>
> You ain't seen nothing yet, chuckles.

Good point.

Why are conservatives never happy unless thousands
of American troops are getting killed in overseas wars?

[Mitchell Holman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in

news:XnsA10CCB895F3DAWe...@88.198.244.100:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10C4A5B4D35F...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> "Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in
>> news:k82906$d12$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100...
>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
envy
>>>> of the modern world.
>>>>
>>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>>
>>> But we had 9/11. Let me guess: you're going to blame that one on
>>> Willie.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov 4, 2008: The day everything went from being
>> Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
>>
>
> Ya mean like the nigger keeps blaming Bush?

So you are bigot as well as an idiot.

A requirement for modern conservatism, I see.

[Mitchell Holman]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in
news:XnsA10D658B6...@216.196.121.131:

> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10BE2368416B...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the
>>> envy of the modern world.
>>>
>>
>> Unemployment went UP during the Bush term.
>
> 2000 4.0
> 2001 4.7
> 2002 5.8
> 2003 6.0
> 2004 5.5
> 2005 5.1
> 2006 4.6
> 2007 4.6
> 2008 5.8
> 2009 9.3
> 2010 9.6
> 2011 8.9
>

Bingo.

Can you imagine the rightwing shitstorm
if Obama DOUBLED the unemployment rate?

But Bush does it - no problem.

>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>>
>>
>> Just thousands of other Americans killed.
>
> Seems that is continuing under Obama. Oh, wait.....that is in the
> "right war".
>
>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Clinton - 93
>> Americans killed by Islamic terrorists under Bush - 5,098
>
> Almost 3000 of those in NYC.

Who was president at the time?




"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president
is running for re-election on the grounds that he's
done such great things about terrorism. He ignored
it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we
could have done something to stop 9/11."
Richard Clarke, Bush's senior advisor on terrorism
issues, 4/21/04

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA10CCB5A8A6F3We...@88.198.244.100...

> "Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in
> news:k82906$d12$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA10BDCFF721E0We...@88.198.244.100...
>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA10AD67B459CB...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Actually for most of Bush's tenure the Republicans
>>>> controlled the House, the Senate, the White House AND
>>>> the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> And there were a lot fewer unemployed and my health care was the envy of
>>> the modern world.
>>>
>>> And we hadn't had any ambassadors murdered.
>>
>> But we had 9/11. Let me guess: you're going to blame that one on Willie.
>>
>>
>
> Pretty much. Democrats are a death cult. So die and leave us out of it.

My, how "christian" of you.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA10CD61E4409...@216.196.121.131...

U R A RASIST LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!1111111oneoneone

[James Meyers]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in message
news:k84p5m$8m6$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes like Fred^44 who hates everyone that is Christian. And you also!

[James Meyers]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in message
news:k84p75$90h$1...@dont-email.me...

No you are a rasist. If anyone disagrees with you you call them a Racist.
Learn how to spell nigger

[Mitchell Holman]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isright.com> wrote in

news:k84p5m$8m6$1...@dont-email.me:

Actually, yes.

Just what the Bible says.

At least in the parts that preachers
prefer not to talk about..........


"If any man come to me, and hate not his father,
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,
and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple."
Luke 14:26

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Kirby Grant" <KGr...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>Because conservatives rejoice in the profits that come from pursueing wars.

Which is why Obama is still pursueing [sic] wars, because he's a
conservative, right?

[Mitchell Holman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:40jca8dil9h1f7rdn...@4ax.com:

How many wars has Obama started, again?