The Immaculate Deception

[Abiel]

The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm

150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 150th anniversary was marked on
December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
throughout the Catholic 'church'.

Roman Catholics claim Mary was conceived and born free of all sin and
full of grace. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of dear
Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult, and keeping them from the only
Saviour: The LORD Jesus Christ

What is The Immaculate Conception?

Mention 'Immaculate Conception' and most people assume it applies to
the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. That He was conceived of the
Holy Spirit, sinless, perfect and divine.

In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception relates
not to Christ, but to Mary's conception and birth. Papists
blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of all sin,
and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to one person
born on Earth: Almighty God in the Flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.


They Can't Be Serious?

They are serious, seriously wrong, here it is...
Official Catholic doctrine declares,
Through the centuries the [Catholic] Church has become ever more aware
that Mary, 'full of grace' through God, was redeemed from the moment of
her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her
conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by
virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race,
preserved immune from all stain of original sin. Catechism of the
Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, No. 491

...By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her
whole life long. Catechism, No. 493
Such demonic teaching churns the stomachs of real Christians, but the
Catholic Catechism gets even worse, brace yourself...
From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the
mother of his Son. 'Full of grace', Mary is 'the most excellent fruit
of redemption' (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she
was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained
pure from all personal sin throughout her life. Catechism, No. 508
Where Does This Dogma Come From?

This wicked teaching comes straight from the heart of Satan. It flatly
contradicts the word of God, and Catholic theologians freely admit the
dogma has no Scriptural basis. The founding fathers of the Catholic
cult knew Mary was not sinless. So how did Satan persuade Catholics to
swallow the lie?


Satan's Queen of Heaven

Since The Fall he'd seduced sinners into worshipping demons
masquerading as The Queen of Heaven in various forms. The Babylonians
called her Semiramis, Greeks and Romans were bewitched by equivalents
called Aphrodite, Venus, and others. We read about the Ephesian's
idolatry of Artemis (or Diana), in the book of Acts. Over in China they
had a version called Guan Yin, worshipped as the 'Goddess of Mercy' and
'Queen of Heaven'. All bowed down to stone idols, lured into the occult
by demon spirits, and away from the Living God.

Even the Jews fell into this idolatry. Read the prophets lambasting
them for making cake, incense, and drink offerings to the 'Queen of
Heaven' in Jeremiah Chapters 7 and 44 for example.
Catholics Crown Mary Queen of Heaven

So when the Catholic cult began to form centuries later, it was an easy
thing for the Queen of Heaven cult to fashion Mary into this role.
Elevating her gradually from a fallen human, like all of us, into a
divine being, and now co-redeemer with Christ. Devotees of Mary have a
demonic inclination to pronounce her sinless, so that she could become
part of the Godhead. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Mary. 'Mother of
God'.

Seventh century Middle-Eastern Catholics held feasts in early December
in honour of Mary's conception, yet even they did not proclaim her
sinless. Gradually, Satan worked his mischief, elevating Mary, and
corrupting the meaning of God's word. In the Fifteenth century Pope
Sixtus IV decreed that all Catholics must observe the Feast. 'Heretics'
who objected to the exaltation of Mary were excommunicated.

Pope Alexander VII took it a stage further in 1661 by declaring that,
"The immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the
creation of her soul, and its infusion into the body, was the object of
the feast."

Finally Pope Pius IX promulgated the dogma, with great pageantry amidst
cardinals and bishops on 8 December 1854. Satan had succeeded in making
the lie become a doctrinal 'fact' on a par with God's word, for
Catholics.

Who said, 'I am the Immaculate Conception'?

Four years later, Satan arranged for a little French girl to wander
into a cave at Lourdes where she met a demon. The Vatican version
claims on March 25, 1858, that Mary appeared to Bernadette Soubirous,
and announced, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
The Pope took this as confirmation of the dogma he'd proclaimed
earlier. You will be hearing of more apparitions of Mary and Fatima in
the days before Christ returns. All are demonic, Satan's occult work,
and nothing to do with God.

Immaculate Deception

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is false from start
to finish. To embrace it is to blaspheme Christ, to partake in
idolatry, and the worship of demons.
What is wrong with the doctrine?

'Hail Mary Full of Grace'

The prayer most often uttered by Catholics is pure blasphemy. It is
based upon the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was not full of
grace: that description belongs to God alone: The Lord Jesus Christ.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth. Holy Bible, Jn. 1:14 KJV

Instead of coming to fallen man in wrath and divine Judgment, God came
in Christ, full of grace and truth. He came in love, to redeem us from
the decay of sin, full of mercy and grace. He alone is the Saviour from
sin and the coming wrath of God. Those who reject the Son will be
condemned to Hell when He returns to Judge mankind.

Nobody else in Scripture is described as 'full of grace', certainly not
Mary. Though Papists assert that the term 'full of grace' is used by
the Angel Gabriel visiting Mary in Luke 1:28.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Meaning Mary was the recipient of God's favour, not full of grace
herself.

Even the Catholic New American Bible translates the Greek as,
And coming to her, he said, Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.
It is Catholic theologians who twist the expression 'favoured one'
perverting the Scripture to rob Christ of His uniqueness, and exalt
Mary in their dogmas.

The Pope and That Woman

Pope Pius IX pulled the wool over his flock's eyes by crudely bending
the wonderful prophetic scripture in Gen. 3:15. For details see: Who
was the woman in Genesis 3:15?

Worshipping Mary is Occult Idolatry

You will find Mary is worshipped as the 'Queen of Heaven' in Catholic
churches throughout the world. Madonna idols and shrines vary in form,
blending readily with pagan occult practices and demon worship. Devout
Roman Catholics serving their idols in the Philippines, Mexico, the
Caribbean, and Africa, perform many demonic practices of pagan worship.
Lutheran and Anglican churches in Europe and Africa frequently have
shrines to the 'Queen of Heaven', which the gullible are encouraged to
bow down to. The Reformers would be appalled to see the inroads made by
Satan's Ecumenical Movement into what were once Protestant fellowships.
Who is The All Holy One?

Official Catholic doctrine describes Mary as 'the All Holy One' making
her equal with Almighty God.

By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor
sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All Holy
One. Catechism, No. 2677

The word of God attributes the title Holy One to Almighty God, and the
Lord Jesus Christ, who is Almighty God in the Flesh.

For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: Is.
43:3 KJV

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be
granted unto you. Ac 3:14 KJV

Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only
art holy: Rev. 15:4 KJV

Nowhere in Scripture is Mary described as the Holy One. To describe
Mary this way is clear blasphemy against God.

Mary was a fallen sinner, born with the sinful nature she inherited
from Adam and Eve, like all of us. She needed to be born again, saved
through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary would be appalled to see
herself described as the 'All Holy One'. Her own lips proclaimed she
was in need of salvation:

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath
rejoiced in God my Saviour. Lk. 1:46-7 KJV

Mary sang that she needed God to save her.

God's word is clear that all mankind (including Mary) are unholy,
sinful, and separated from Him.

for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all
under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
God.. Ro. 3:9-11 KJV

That is why The Holy One came down from Heaven, lived as a man, yet
never sinned once. (Ro. 3:9-10, 2. Co. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pe. 2:22, 1
Jn. 3:5)

Then the sinless Son of God laid His life down to redeem all who repent
and believe in Him. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and
man.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due
time. 1 Tim. 2:5-6 KJV

Catholics contradict God's word by claiming that Mary played a role in
her own salvation, and that of all people.

'Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for
the whole human race.' Catechism, No. 494
Pope Breaks God's First Commandment

Praying to Mary for help, and redemption is not only indulging in the
occult, but denying Christ. Pope John Paul II, a lifelong worshiper of
Mary and Fatima idols, even went so far as to consecrate the world, and
the new millennium to "Mary Most Holy". October 8th, 2000

In doing so he again broke God's plain Commandments,
Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the
earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments. Deut. 5:7-10

This Pope, like all popes, is not a Christian: He is an idolater
worshipping a false Christ, and leads people into the occult by his
example.

Summary

Mary was conceived and born in sin just like all descendants of Adam
and Eve. She inherited their sinful nature, and was a sinner until she
was born again by faith in the resurrected Christ. The dogma of the
Immaculate Conception is a satanic lie designed to seduce people into
idolatry and the occult. It is blasphemous in that it elevates Mary to
divinity, attempting to rob Almighty God and Jesus Christ of their
glory and honour. Catholics, by endorsing this sinful doctrine bring
God's Judgment upon themselves and their families.

The Solution

If you call yourself a Roman Catholic, know that you are making a
terrible mistake resulting in your eternal damnation. Catholicism has
nothing to do with God; it is a satanic counterfeit of Christianity,
which keeps people from the genuine Christ and Only Saviour.
Do not trust the words of the best of men in regard to the salvation of
your soul. Put your whole trust in the Living Word of God, The LORD
Jesus Christ. He alone is the Saviour: He paid the full price for your
salvation once and for all.

Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me. Jn. 14:6 KJV

Peter under the anointing of the Holy Spirit said of Christ,
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Ac. 4:12 KJV
You cannot come to God through Mary: Her name is useless to save. You
cannot earn your way to Heaven by sacraments, penance, works, good
deeds, or repetitive prayers.

Jesus said, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he
hath sent... And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one
which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life:
and I will raise him up at the last day... Verily, verily, I say unto
you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Jn. 6:29,40,47 KJV
Come out of Catholicism, come out of religion, and come into Christ.
You can do that right where you sit if you are prepared to repent and
believe on Christ.

Are you ready and willing to repent and believe in the LORD Jesus
Christ?

--

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life. (John 3:16)

[Mattb.]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>
>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>
>Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.

https://goo.gl/gijOhK

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>

>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

Granny, Eggs. Suck.

>Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>
>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm
>
>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm
>
>150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
>in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 150th anniversary was marked on
>December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
>throughout the Catholic 'church'.
>
>Roman Catholics claim Mary was conceived and born free of all sin and
>full of grace. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of dear
>Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult, and keeping them from the only
>Saviour: The LORD Jesus Christ

WHAT FUCKING LORD JESUS CHRIST, in-your-face moron?

>What is The Immaculate Conception?
>
>Mention 'Immaculate Conception' and most people assume it applies to
>the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. That He was conceived of the
>Holy Spirit, sinless, perfect and divine.

No. moron. Perhaps uneducated and ignorant fundies do.

>In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception relates
>not to Christ, but to Mary's conception and birth. Papists
>blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of all sin,
>and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to one person
>born on Earth: Almighty God in the Flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

WHAT FUCKING "ALMIGHTY GOD IN THE FLESH, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST"?

Your unsolicited nonsense is just as silly as theirs.

>They Can't Be Serious?
>
>They are serious, seriously wrong, here it is...
>Official Catholic doctrine declares,

Idiot.

>Through the centuries the [Catholic] Church has become ever more aware
>that Mary, 'full of grace' through God, was redeemed from the moment of
>her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception
>confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

SO FUCKING WHAT?

All religions and denominations have their own doctrines which they
and they alone take seriously.

[rest of this unsolicited rudeness and stupidity deleted]

Was it really necessary to post 300 lines of nonsense in alt.atheism?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.

АА Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.

> https://goo.gl/gijOhK

[PATRICK]

"Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

>150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
>in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 150th anniversary was marked on
>December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
>throughout the Catholic 'church'.

>What is The Immaculate Conception?

+ What do you care?
And why do you care?
Is this something you wish to debate about on a newsgroup?

[raven1]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>

>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

Yes, every Catholic knows that. Educated non-Catholics should also
know that, so who's your target audience here?

>Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>
>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm
>
>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm

Fabricating lies is the basis of all religions, so you might want to
recall the proverb about glass houses and throwing stones...

>150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
>in Roman Catholic doctrine,

Misleading. It was formally proclaimed to be dogma then, but had been
part of Catholic tradition long before.

>and the 150th anniversary was marked on
>December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
>throughout the Catholic 'church'.
>
>Roman Catholics claim Mary was conceived and born free of all sin and
>full of grace. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of dear
>Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult,

"Ensnaring them in the occult"? Um, what?

> and keeping them from the only
>Saviour: The LORD Jesus Christ

How so?

>What is The Immaculate Conception?
>
>Mention 'Immaculate Conception' and most people assume it applies to
>the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, all Catholics know what the Immaculate Conception actually
refers to, and so do educated non-Catholics. Once again, who's your
target audience here?

>That He was conceived of the
>Holy Spirit, sinless, perfect and divine.
>
>In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception relates
>not to Christ, but to Mary's conception and birth. Papists
>blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of all sin,

Specifically, that she was conceived and born free of the stain of
Original Sin. There is a distinction, albeit one that I find, as an
atheist, to be as silly as arguments over angels dancing on pin heads.

>and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to one person
>born on Earth: Almighty God in the Flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.
>
>
>They Can't Be Serious?

They are, but then, religionists are deadly serious about so many
silly things that it's hardly necessary to single them out for this
one.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <mht91btodid5k6kim...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

€€ Isn't this a Newsgroup? In any event all conceptions are immaculate
or God causes a miscarriage or a stillbirth.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:20:21 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>
>>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>
>Yes, every Catholic knows that. Educated non-Catholics should also
>know that, so who's your target audience here?

He's just another asshole being a rectal orifice for the sake of being
an anal sphinctre.

>>Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>>fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>>
>>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm
>>
>>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm
>
>Fabricating lies is the basis of all religions, so you might want to
>recall the proverb about glass houses and throwing stones...

From the Gospels to the Book of Mormon.

>>150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
>>in Roman Catholic doctrine,
>
>Misleading. It was formally proclaimed to be dogma then, but had been
>part of Catholic tradition long before.
>
>>and the 150th anniversary was marked on
>>December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
>>throughout the Catholic 'church'.
>>
>>Roman Catholics claim Mary was conceived and born free of all sin and
>>full of grace. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of dear
>>Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult,

How is it blasphemous? It's their religion.

>"Ensnaring them in the occult"? Um, what?
>
>> and keeping them from the only
>>Saviour: The LORD Jesus Christ

WHAT FUCKING :SAVIOUR: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST" was the question-begging
moron rudely and stupidly presuming in the atheist newsgroup?

>How so?
>
>>What is The Immaculate Conception?
>>
>>Mention 'Immaculate Conception' and most people assume it applies to
>>the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Only the ignorant, and WHAT FUCKING "LORD JESUS CHRIST"?

>Again, all Catholics know what the Immaculate Conception actually
>refers to, and so do educated non-Catholics. Once again, who's your
>target audience here?

Those he's trying to annoy.

>>That He was conceived of the
>>Holy Spirit, sinless, perfect and divine.

WHAT FUCKING HOLY SPIRIT?

>>In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception relates
>>not to Christ, but to Mary's conception and birth. Papists
>>blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of all sin,

It's only blasphemy to fundamentalist Protestants, imbecile - to
everybody else, it's merely somebody else's religion.

>Specifically, that she was conceived and born free of the stain of
>Original Sin. There is a distinction, albeit one that I find, as an
>atheist, to be as silly as arguments over angels dancing on pin heads.

Exactly.

>>and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to one person
>>born on Earth: Almighty God in the Flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

WHAT FUCKING :ALMIGHTY GOD IN FLESH, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST"?

Does that mean he's shafting the moron in the ass?

>>They Can't Be Serious?

It's just as nonsensical as any other Christian doctrine.

>They are, but then, religionists are deadly serious about so many
>silly things that it's hardly necessary to single them out for this
>one.

And they pretend to be offended when what they insist on telling us
because they can't live and let live, is treated as ridiculous.

[Jahnu .]

On 06/10/2015 23:45, Abiel wrote:
>

The Roman Catholic lie of the Irregular Conception relates NOT TO
CHRISTMAS PUDDING, but to Shanana's conception and birth.

Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to

fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Shanana.

http://www.burn-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm

http://www.jesus-is-toast.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm

3000000 years ago the Irregular Conception dogma was officially included
in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 3000000th anniversary was marked on
December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Holby City, and
throughout the Catholic 'runting emporium'.

Roman Catholics claim Shanana was concocted and bored free of all bother
and full of hair. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of

dear Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult, and keeping them from the

only Confractional Guru: The LORD Srila Prapadipadappadoo

What is The Irregular Conception?

Mention 'Irregular Conception' and most people assume it applies to
the virgin birth of the Lord Srila Prapadipadappadoo. That He was
conceived of the Vedic Astral Being, botherless, perfect and divine.

In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Irregular Conception relates
not to Princess Gurpajeet, but to Shanana's conception and birth.

Papists blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of

all bother, and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to
one person born on Earth: Almighty Krishna in the Flesh, the Lord Srila
Prapadipadappadoo.

They Can't Be Serious?

They are serious, seriously wrong, here it is...
Official Catholic doctrine declares,
Through the centuries the [Catholic] Church has become ever more aware

that Shanana, 'full of grace' through Krishna, was redeemed from the
moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Irregular

Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Shanana was, from the first moment of her
conception, by a bothergular grace and privilege of Almighty Krishna and
by virtue of the merits of Srila Prapadipadappadoo, Confractional Guru
of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original bother.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, No. 491

...By the grace of Krishna Shanana remained free of every personal
bother her whole coupons long. Catchaschism, No. 1493 Such demonic
teaching churns the stomachs of real Princess Gurpajeetians, but the

Catholic Catechism gets even worse, brace yourself...

From among the descendants of Eve, Krishna chose the Virgin Shanana to
be the mother of his Distant Relative. 'Full of grace', Shanana is 'the
most excellent fruit of resumption' (ER 103): from the first instant of

her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original

bother and she remained pure from all personal bother throughout her
coupons. Catechism, No. 508 Where Does This Dogma Come From?

This wicked teaching comes straight from the heart of Satan. It flatly

contradicts the word of Krishna, and Catholic theologians freely admit

the dogma has no Scriptural basis. The founding fathers of the Catholic

cult knew Shanana was not botherless. So how did Satan persuade

Catholics to swallow the lie?


Satan's Queen of Heaven

Since The Fall he'd seduced botherners into worshipping demons

masquerading as The Queen of Heaven in various forms. The Babylonians
called her Semiramis, Greeks and Romans were bewitched by equivalents
called Aphrodite, Venus, and others. We read about the Ephesian's
idolatry of Artemis (or Diana), in the book of Acts. Over in China they

had a version called Guan Yin, worshipped as the 'Krishnadess of Mercy'

and 'Queen of Heaven'. All bowed down to stone idols, lured into the

occult by demon spirits, and away from Living with Krishna.

Even the Jews fell into this idolatry. Read the prophets lambasting
them for making cake, incense, and drink offerings to the 'Queen of
Heaven' in Jeremiah Chapters 7 and 44 for example.

Catholics Crown Shanana Queen of Heaven

So when the Catholic cult began to form centuries later, it was an easy

thing for the Queen of Heaven cult to fashion Shanana into this role.

Elevating her gradually from a fallen human, like all of us, into a

divine being, and now co-redeemer with Princess Gurpajeet. Devotees of
Shanana have a demonic inclination to pronounce her botherless, so that
she could become part of the Krishnahead. Father, Distant Relative,
Vedic Astral Being, and Shanana. 'Mother of Krishna'.

Seventh century Middle-Eastern Catholics held feasts in early December

in honour of Shanana's conception, yet even they did not proclaim her
sinless. Gradually, Satan worked his mischief, elevating Shanana, and
corrupting the meaning of Krishna's word. In the Fifteenth century Pope

Sixtus IV decreed that all Catholics must observe the Feast. 'Heretics'

who objected to the exaltation of Shanana were smacked aroun' da head.

Pope Alexander VII took it a stage further in 1661 by declaring that,

"The immunity of Shanana from original bother in the first moment of the
creation of her arse, and its infusion into the body, was the object of

the feast."

Finally Pope Pius IX promulgated the dogma, with great pageantry amidst
cardinals and bishops on 8 December 1854. Satan had succeeded in making

the lie become a doctrinal 'fact' on a par with Krishna's word, for
Catholics.

Who said, 'I am the Irregular Conception'?

Four years later, Satan arranged for a little French girl to wander
into a cave at Lourdes where she met a demon. The Vatican version

claims on March 25, 1858, that Shanana appeared to Bernadette Soubirous,
and announced, "I am the Irregular Conception."

The Pope took this as confirmation of the dogma he'd proclaimed

earlier. You will be hearing of more apparitions of Shanana and Fatima
in the monster truck rallys before Princess Gurpajeet returns. All are
demonic, Satan's occult work, and nothing to do with Krishna.

Irregular Deception

The doctrine of the Irregular Conception of Shanana is false from start
to finish. To embrace it is to blaspheme Princess Gurpajeet, to partake

in idolatry, and the worship of demons. What is wrong with the doctrine?

'Hail Shanana Full of Grace'

The prayer most often uttered by Catholics is pure blasphemy. It is

based upon the dogma of the Irregular Conception. Shanana was not full
of grace: that description belongs to Krishna alone: The Lord Srila
Prapadipadappadoo.
And the Post Glottle Fribulation was made fresh, and smelt among us,
(and we beheld her lady garden, the glory as of the only lady garden of
the mother,) full of fur and smelling of vermouth. Vedic Bible, Jn. 1:14
(Bg 1-32.5)

Instead of coming to fallen man in wrath and divine Gesticulations,
Krishna came in Princess Gurpajeet, full of grace and truth. He came in
love, to redeem us from the decay of bother, full of mercy and grace. He
alone is the Confractional Guru from sin and the coming wrath of
Krishna. Those who reject the Distant Relative will be

condemned to Hell when He returns to Judge mankind.

Nobody else in Scripture is described as 'full of grace', certainly not

Shanana. Though Papists assert that the term 'full of grace' is used by
the Angel Gabriel visiting Shanana in Luke 1:28.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Meaning Shanana was the recipient of Krishna's favour, not full of grace

herself.

Even the Catholic New American Bible translates the Greek as,
And coming to her, he said, Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.
It is Catholic theologians who twist the expression 'favoured one'

perverting the Scripture to rob Princess Gurpajeet of His uniqueness,
and exalt Shanana in their dog baskets.

The Pope and That Choir Boy

Pope Pius IX pulled the wool over his flock's eyes by crudely bending

over the wonderful prophetic scripture in Genital. 3:15. For details
see: Who was the pervert in Genocide 53:15?

Worshipping Shanana is Occult Idolatry

You will find Shanana is worshipped as the 'Queen of Heaven' in Catholic

churches throughout the world. Madonna idols and shrines vary in form,
blending readily with pagan occult practices and demon worship. Devout
Roman Catholics serving their idols in the Philippines, Mexico, the
Caribbean, and Africa, perform many demonic practices of pagan worship.
Lutheran and Anglican churches in Europe and Africa frequently have
shrines to the 'Queen of Heaven', which the gullible are encouraged to
bow down to. The Reformers would be appalled to see the inroads made by
Satan's Ecumenical Movement into what were once Protestant fellowships.

Who is The All Vedic One?

Official Catholic doctrine describes Shanana as 'the All Vedic One'
making her equal with Almighty Krishna.

By asking Shanana to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor
sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All Vedic
One. Catchaschism, No. 267

The word of Krishna attributes the title Vedic One to Almighty Krishna,
and the Lord Srila Prapadipadappadoo, who is Almighty Krishna in the Tuxedo.

For I am the LORD thy Krishna, the Vedic One of Israel, thy
Confractional Guru: Islamic State. 43:3 (Bg 1-32.5)

But ye denied the Vedic One and the Just, and desired a puppeteer to be
granted unto you. UU 3:14 (Bg 1-32.5)

Who shall not fear thee, O Krishna, and glorify thy name? for thou only
art holy: Rev. 15:4 (Bg 1-32.5)

Nowhere in Scripture is Shanana described as the Vedic One. To describe
Shanana this way is clear blasphemy against Krishna.

Shanana was a fallen botherner, born with the botherful nature she
inherited from Bacall and Bogart, like all of us. She needed to be bored
again, get a decent bargain through faith in the Lord Srila
Prapadipadappadoo. Shanana would be appalled to see herself described as
the 'All Vedic One'. Her own lips proclaimed she was in need of salivation:

And Shanana said, My arse doth magnify in this, And my spirit hath
rejoiced in Krishna my Confractional Guru. Lk. 1:46-7 (Bg 1-32.5)

Shanana sang that she needed Krishna to get a decent bargain for her.

Krishna's word is clear that all mankind (including Shanana) are wooly,

sinful, and separated from Him.

for we have before proved both Jews and Cosmonauts, that they are all
under bother. As it is written, There is none conflaturlar, no, not one:
There is Ken who understandeth, there is none that spinneth after
Krishna.. Ro. 3:9-11 (Bg 1-32.5)

That is why The Vedic One came down from Heaven, lived as a man, yet
never botherned once. (Ro. 3:9-10, 2. Co. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pe. 2:22, 1
Jn. 3:5)

Then the botherless Distant Relative of Krishna laid His coupons down to
redeem all who repaint and believe in Him. Srila Prapadipadappadoo is
the only meditator between Krishna and man.
For there is one Krishna, and one meditator between Krishna and men, the
man Princess Gurpajeet Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister; Who gave
himself a ransom for all sacred cattle, to be pressurised in due
time. 1 Nit. 2:5-6 (Bg 1-32.5)

Catholics contradict Krishna's word by claiming that Shanana played a
role in her own salivation, and that of all sacred cows.

'Being obedient she became the cause of salivation for herself and for
the whole human race.' Catchaschism, No. 44 Pope Breaks Krishna's First
Condiment.

Praying to Shanana for help, and redemption is not only indulging in the
occult, but denying Princess Gurpajeet. Pope John Paul II, a coupons
long worshiper of Shanana and Fatima idols, even went so far as to
consecrate the world, and the new millennium to "Shanana Most Vedic".
October 8th, 2000

In doing so he again broke Krishna's plain Commandments,

Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the
earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I

the LORD thy Krishna am a jealous Krishna, visiting the indigestion of

the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of

them that lurk around my sack, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that wank me and keep my commandants. Mein Kampf. 5:7-10

This Pope, like all popes, is not a Princess Gurpajeetian: He is an
idolater worshipping a false Princess Gurpajeet, and leads people into
the occult by his bifurcated fanny.

Summary

Shanana was conceived and born in bother just like all descendants of
Fred and Ginger. She inherited their botherful nature, and was a
botherner until she was bored again by repeats of the resurrected
Princess Gurpajeet. The dogma of the Irregular Conception is a satanic
lie designed to seduce people into shopping and the niche market
flavored condoms. It is blasphemous in that it elevates Shanana to
divinity, attempting to rob Almighty Krishna and Srila Prapadipadappadoo
of their glory and honour. Catholics, by endorsing this botherful
doctrine bring Krishna's Gesticulations upon themselves and their families.

The Solution

If you call yourself a Roman Catholic, know that you are making a

terrible mistake resulting in your eternal diddling. Catholicism has
nothing to do with Krishna; it is a satanic counterfeit of Princess
Gurpajeetianity, which keeps people from the genuine Princess Gurpajeet
and Only Confractional Guru.
Do not trust the words of the best of religious salesmen in regard to
the salivation of your arse. Put your whole trust in the Living Word of
Krishna, The LORD Srila Prapadipadappadoo. He alone is the Confractional
Guru: He paid the full price for your salivation once and for all.

Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister said, I am the way, the truth, and
the coupons: no man cometh unto the Freeway, but by me. Oot. 14:6 (Bg
1-32.5)

Rolf under the anointing of the Vedic Astral Being said of Princess
Gurpajeet, Neither is there salivation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be get a decent
bargain. Ac. 4:12 (Bg 1-32.5)
You should come to Krishna through Shanana: Her name is useless to get a
decent bargain. You should earn your way to Heaven by sacraments,
penance, works, good deeds, hornswoggling, or repetitive prayers.

Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister said, This is the work of Krishna,

that ye believe on him whom he hath sent... And this is the will of him

that sent me, that every one which seeth the Distant Relative, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting coupons:
and I will launch him up at the last monster truck rally... Verily,

verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting

coupons. Sid. 6:29,40,47 (Bg 1-32.5)
Come out of Catholicism, come out of religion, and come into Princess
Gurpajeet. You can do that right where you sit if you are prepared to
repaint and believe on Princess Gurpajeet.

Are you ready and willing to repaint and believe in the LORD Princess
Nanaboom's wayward sister Princess Gurpajeet?

Have a look at my art -

http://youtu.be/e_ejv7938XyL8 - Exploding Cow Happy
http://youtu.be/eaQ0sw6Hm3vrA - Cooked Birdy
http://youtu.be/2uRb35sf9Vzg8 - Sudden Death street
http://youtu.be/YHcWgSe73vItk - Poopy Cow Kill Kill!
http://youtu.be/5_Q43Hg0qOVK4 - Microbes that grow on cows.


http://www.touchtalent.com//talentless/118705/jahnu-das

[gfra...@gmail.com]

Sadly, pagan catholicism's harlot christian daughters but carry on her legacy of lies, delusion, deception and every evil work!

For their theo'ry'logical doctrinal heresies but lead those who are bound in the chains of their "strong delusion" along that "broad way to destruction" and damnation.......

TRUTH IS! ALL religion IS anti-messiah.......

http://asimpleandspirituallife.blogspot.com/2014/10/someone-accused-me-of-being-member-of.html

And Yes! "atheism" is a religion as well, for atheists see their version of a god each and every time they view their reflected "image".......

"Come out from among them and be separate"!

ALL religion, for The Faithful ARE Family.......

[duke]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>

>The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

Then why did God advise that she is the most blessed of all women?

>Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.

Jesus took care of that.

>http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholic.immaculate.conception.deception.htm
>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/deception.htm

>What is The Immaculate Conception?

>Mention 'Immaculate Conception' and most people assume it applies to
>the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. That He was conceived of the
>Holy Spirit, sinless, perfect and divine.

Nope, Mary.

>In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception relates
>not to Christ, but to Mary's conception and birth. Papists
>blasphemously claim that she was conceived, and born, free of all sin,
>and full of grace. A description that can only be applied to one person
>born on Earth: Almighty God in the Flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yep, a result of God taking care of that THEN declaring her most blessed of all
women.

>They Can't Be Serious?

Why not?

>They are serious, seriously wrong, here it is...

You're a poor example of a Christian.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>> >
>> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>>

>€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.

Stupid mattloon.

[Abiel]

I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
you like to be?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
> >> >
> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
> >>
> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
>
> Stupid mattloon.
>

€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?

[raven1]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>you like to be?

Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
part of a theistic religion? (Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)

[Christopher A. Lee]

He probably doesn't even realise just how stupid he was, because
Christianity creates sociopaths and narcissists unable to interact
with others.

"Christians tell us that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask is
- not that they love their friends even, but they treat those who
differ from them, with simple fairness. We do not wish to be forgiven
but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive
them." - George Ingersoll

[duke]

Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.

[duke]

On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

Forgiven the final time is later on for all of us. I know why I was forgiven
before. Do you know why you were forgiven?

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>
>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>you like to be?
>
>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>part of a theistic religion?

Let me guess: avoiding the eternal flames???

>(Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
>Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
>point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:44:58 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>you like to be?
>>
>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>part of a theistic religion? (Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
>>Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
>>point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)
>
>He probably doesn't even realise just how stupid he was, because
>Christianity creates sociopaths and narcissists unable to interact
>with others.

That would be you guys.

[MattB]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:09:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
>>> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>>> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>>> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>>> >>
>>> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
>>>
>>> Stupid mattloon.
>>>
>>€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
>
>Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.

This is a guy that says he has never lied here? Maybe this was a
attempt at humor .

[•RLMeasures]

In article <cp8d1b5pjtsq51opj...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
> >> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
> >> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
> >> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
> >> >>
> >> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
> >>
> >> Stupid mattloon.
> >>
> >€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
>
> Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.
>

€€€€ You have not only played many, but many of us know you have done so.

[no...@none.com]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:12:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>part of a theistic religion?

I find that statement ludicrous, atheists invoke God when cursing
others since they seek a higher power to insure the curse has some
meaning to both parties. They curse even when speaking to inanimate
objects.

[no...@none.com]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

You people kill me. A theist is and atheist. You have various theist
beliefs, and it is of concern to you. So you waste time on the faith
of your choice trying to convince others that you are sure of
yourselves. What a dishonest group.

If someone never believed then they would never be concerned and would
never even give it a glancing moment. After all if something isn't
real what would be the point of showering a thought with attention.
Why study something that isn't there? Do you love believing in pretend
boogie men?

Tell me, why do most hardcore druggies see little characters running
about them, giving some of them names, or finding out that they
already have names. Yes, the little demons you cannot shake off by
yourself since you lack the authority.

Naw, you are far too grown up for all of this. LOL

[raven1]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:12:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>you like to be?
>>
>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>part of a theistic religion?
>
>Let me guess: avoiding the eternal flames???

Wow. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that people who don't
believe in any deities might believe one part of your particular myth.

[raven1]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:42:42 -0700, <no...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>you like to be?
>>
>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>part of a theistic religion? (Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
>>Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
>>point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)
>
>You people kill me. A theist is and atheist. You have various theist
>beliefs, and it is of concern to you. So you waste time on the faith
>of your choice trying to convince others that you are sure of
>yourselves. What a dishonest group.
>
>If someone never believed then they would never be concerned and would
>never even give it a glancing moment.

I wouldn't give religion a second thought if religious fanatics like
"duke" and you didn't insist on shoving it in everyone's face here,
and lunatics like the Republican Party at large weren't trying to
impose their beliefs on everyone else in real life. Look in the mirror
if you want to see why atheists are concerned about religion.

[Christopher A. Lee]

So when you say "Oh, Shit", does that mean you worship it, imbecile?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <t3jd1b5ai7n39r20n...@4ax.com>, MattB

€€€€ The scary part is that he may be serious, and that's no joke.

[no...@none.com]

That is poor rational thinking, so much for atheists being the
brightest bulbs on the block.

[Christopher A. Lee]

How so, in-your-face, nasty, personal liar?

> so much for atheists being the
>brightest bulbs on the block.

Grow up.

[Abiel]

Was Krishna ever resurrected from death? Jesus was, and we can all
share in His resurrection. Have you ever sinned? So have I, but I'm
forgiven. Would you like to be forgiven too? Jesus stands at the door
and knocks.

[no...@none.com]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:10:39 -0400, raven1

The only president I know who was elected mainly because he was
supposed to be a "Christian" was democratic President, Jimmy Carter.
And the southern democrats are real big on quoting the Bible. Then
again it is ridiculous thinking that either party is "Christian". They
all play to strong groups, and if Christianity is in ATM they all play
church. Just like the phony president we have now.

As to me looking in a mirror for a cause, that is pretty silly. It is
an irrational focus you have. Sounds to me like christianphobia.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <khmd1bhdmmn3nsd5r...@4ax.com>,

And once more poor poor dukie has committed the ultimate blasphemy--he
declared his god so incredibly stupid that it wouldn't know the
difference between sincere worship and that done "just in case".

--

JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <d4kd1b5v2j5gpnc6c...@4ax.com>,

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <ulud1bdijhunp4gso...@4ax.com>,

How is our current President "phony"?

[no...@none.com]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:27:11 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

I have to dummy down to understand your type of thinking. It would be
helpful if you could grow up.

[no...@none.com]

How about you telling us in what way he isn't? What religion does he
practice, worship and adhere too?

[Christopher A. Lee]

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

[Christopher A. Lee]

That's not the wauy it works, in-your-face moron.

You have to back up your bullshit or keep it to yourself.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <b0de1b509p0pa0u2j...@4ax.com>,

He's a lifelong Christian. Went to the same church for over 20 years.
Got married in a Christian church. Baptized his daughters in a Christian
church. Talks about religion and God in a Christian manner.

Your turn.

[raven1]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:35:35 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <khmd1bhdmmn3nsd5r...@4ax.com>,
> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:12:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>> >>>you like to be?
>> >>
>> >>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>> >>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>> >>part of a theistic religion?
>> >
>> >Let me guess: avoiding the eternal flames???
>>
>> Wow. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that people who don't
>> believe in any deities might believe one part of your particular myth.
>
>
>And once more poor poor dukie has committed the ultimate blasphemy--he
>declared his god so incredibly stupid that it wouldn't know the
>difference between sincere worship and that done "just in case".

Yep, it's Pascal's Wager, phrased a bit more stupidly.

[raven1]

Sounds to me like you're completely detached from reality.

[default]

I regard all politicians as phony, it is a job prerequisite. Some more
so than others, but no politician gets elected if he is honest.

[Josh Miles]

Taking common turns of phrase, such as "goddammit" literally is not
something that intelligent, rational people do.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <561799c3$0$7394$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,

That's not what no one meant.

[raven1]

You're responding to a parody, dude.

[no...@none.com]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 22:11:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

He went very little, since he became president he has said he was a
Muslim, has not set a national day of prayer but once or twice,
attends a mosque as frequently of more than a church. His wife brags
about not going to a boring church has better things to do.

Atheists, Muslims and Hindu's all speak of God in a similar fashion.
Like all politicians he says what you want to hear. He also distanced
himself from Wright at the church he went to off and on.

Some "Christians" have kept track of all his misdeeds and two faced
comments. I just say the simple truth, he is a phony.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Evidence, liar?

>attends a mosque as frequently of more than a church. His wife brags

Liar.

>about not going to a boring church has better things to do.

Liar,

>Atheists, Muslims and Hindu's all speak of God

Liar.

> in a similar fashion.
>Like all politicians he says what you want to hear. He also distanced
>himself from Wright at the church he went to off and on.

Wright?

>Some "Christians" have kept track of all his misdeeds and two faced
>comments. I just say the simple truth, he is a phony.

Just because you've been brainwashed by the redneck Republican
religious fanatics.

[Jahnu .]

Blasphemers! Krishna will never die! Jesus was a pretender, get over it.

Today's Science Lesson - How A Flashlight Works

A Flashlight consists of a material plain and various astral plains.
The filament of the flashlight is maintained under Krishna's immediate
and all encompassing gaze as an example for it to reflect His glory.
The glory travels from the filament to the eye of the beholder carried
on the tips of arrows shot from the bows of the multi-armed Higanoodabap
which float reverentially into the eye of the beholder. The beholder
becomes conscious of the material look-object and the arrows are
recycled through myriad astral plains into Higanoodabap's foundary. The
other elements of the flashlight such as the bulb and batteries are
maintained in the material world only as an explanatory consolation for
non-devotees. Higanoodabap is only able to split himself and manifest
in the many material flashlights by eating the flesh of the sacred cow.
Without the sacred beef, Higanoodabap would be just another multi-armed
deity running from flashlight to flashlight.

This is Krishna's lesson to us - to gain sacred flashlight power -
partake of the sacred cow.

Krishna says:

Kill cows, O son of Pookie, Kill them Now! The dirty bastards are
pooping all over my beautiful earth. They spoil the air with their
noxious farts. Use a gatling gun if you have to, kill them all. Air to
ground missles are ok too, or if you're a cheap bastard put on night
vision goggles and chase them over cliffs.

Make family size cow burgers. Slaughter them, cook them, eat them
until you've had your fill then mush the rest into pate for sale. Use
the fields to grow crops instead of grass for these nuisance ploppers
who are as dumb as cattle. (Bg 7.1)

And that my friends is how the sun works.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:06:15 -0700, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:09:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
>>>> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO

>>>> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.

>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to

>>>> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>>>> >>
>>>> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Stupid mattloon.
>>>>
>>>€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
>>
>>Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.
>

>This is a guy that says he has never lied here? Maybe this was a
>attempt at humor .

What is one so that I may know.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:08:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <cp8d1b5pjtsq51opj...@4ax.com>, duke

><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
>> >> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>> >> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>> >> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>> >> >>
>> >> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid mattloon.
>> >>
>> >€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
>>
>> Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.
>>

>€€€€ You have not only played many, but many of us know you have done so.

I don't even know what one is.

[Tom McDonald]

Nope. You've drunk the Kool Aide (he never said he was a Muslim, the
only evidence is a slip of the tongue when discussing what *others* were
calling 'his Muslim faith'), and there have been national days of prayer
every fucking year of his Presidency. You have no real idea of his
Christian faith, and he's a much more regular church-goer than St.
Ronnie of Ray-Gun.

If he acts like a politician, why would that surprise or disgust you *in
a fucking politician*? I'd need to see this list of his 'misdeeds and
two-faced comments'. It would likely be as much a pack of lies as most
of the lying shit said about him.

Shouldn't you be sharpening the pitch fork tines for the next eight
years of President Hillary Rodham Clinton? ;-)

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:28:08 -0700, <no...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:12:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>>part of a theistic religion?
>

>I find that statement ludicrous, atheists invoke God when cursing
>others since they seek a higher power to insure the curse has some
>meaning to both parties. They curse even when speaking to inanimate
>objects.

You need to keep your responses in line with the writer.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:05:28 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:12:30 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>>you like to be?
>>>

>>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>>part of a theistic religion?
>>

>>Let me guess: avoiding the eternal flames???
>
>Wow. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that people who don't
>believe in any deities might believe one part of your particular myth.

You only get one chance before God to reveal your failures. Use it wisely.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 23:33:33 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:

>

>Was Krishna ever resurrected from death? Jesus was, and we can all
>share in His resurrection. Have you ever sinned? So have I, but I'm
>forgiven.

Not after your last confession. John 20:22-23. Heb 10:26-27.

>Would you like to be forgiven too? Jesus stands at the door
>and knocks.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <0b3g1btb1c3o80sqr...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:08:36 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <cp8d1b5pjtsq51opj...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
> >> >> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
> >> >> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
> >> >> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stupid mattloon.
> >> >>
> >> >€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
> >>
> >> Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.
> >>
> >€€€€ You have not only played many, but many of us know you have done so.
>
> I don't even know what one is.
>

• I'm not surprised.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:20:35 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <t3jd1b5ai7n39r20n...@4ax.com>, MattB
><trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:09:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 16:05:30 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <0ava1bp5g5hf4puq3...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 16:35:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >In article <m5k81blkflirnt2ff...@4ax.com>, Mattb.
>> >>> ><trdel...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:45:34 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>> >>> >> >CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Of course, the Catholics, in an attempt to cover up one lie, had to
>> >>> >> >fabricate another lie, the Assumption of Mary.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >€€ Assumptions can not be lies but they can be correct or incorrect.
>> >>>
>> >>> Stupid mattloon.
>> >>>
>> >>€€€ Is Duke running low on Ad Hominem Cards?
>> >
>> >Not even knowing what one is, I have thus never used one.
>>

>> This is a guy that says he has never lied here? Maybe this was a
>> attempt at humor .
>>

>€€€€ The scary part is that he may be serious, and that's no joke.

I am serious. There are so many really dumb people on this ng that it's not
problem to lay some truth on them and they go stir crazy. That's precisely why
you can't name so much as one lie I've told on the ng. Never could, can't now,
never will.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:10:39 -0400, raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:42:42 -0700, <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>>you like to be?
>>>
>>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be

>>>part of a theistic religion? (Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
>>>Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
>>>point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)
>>
>>You people kill me. A theist is and atheist. You have various theist
>>beliefs, and it is of concern to you. So you waste time on the faith
>>of your choice trying to convince others that you are sure of
>>yourselves. What a dishonest group.
>>
>>If someone never believed then they would never be concerned and would
>>never even give it a glancing moment.

>I wouldn't give religion a second thought if religious fanatics like
>"duke" and you didn't insist on shoving it in everyone's face here,

Shove what. You clearly demonstrate never ending ignorance. So we try to help
you.

>and lunatics like the Republican Party at large weren't trying to
>impose their beliefs on everyone else in real life. Look in the mirror
>if you want to see why atheists are concerned about religion.

I want to keep all my tax money for America, motherhood and apple pie. If you
'rats want to help the freeloaders, you dig out of your own pockets.

[duke]

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:34:12 -0700, <no...@none.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:10:39 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:42:42 -0700, <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 08:39:30 -0400, raven1
>>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:32:53 GMT, "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not perfect but I am forgiven. You're not even a Christian. Would
>>>>>you like to be?
>>>>
>>>>Do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous your question is?
>>>>Why would someone who doesn't believe any deities exist want to be
>>>>part of a theistic religion? (Do NOT start spouting nonsense about
>>>>Christianity not being a religion in response, it badly misses the
>>>>point about atheists not believing in deities, yours included.)
>>>
>>>You people kill me. A theist is and atheist. You have various theist
>>>beliefs, and it is of concern to you. So you waste time on the faith
>>>of your choice trying to convince others that you are sure of
>>>yourselves. What a dishonest group.
>>>
>>>If someone never believed then they would never be concerned and would
>>>never even give it a glancing moment.
>>
>>I wouldn't give religion a second thought if religious fanatics like
>>"duke" and you didn't insist on shoving it in everyone's face here,

>>and lunatics like the Republican Party at large weren't trying to
>>impose their beliefs on everyone else in real life. Look in the mirror
>>if you want to see why atheists are concerned about religion.
>

>The only president I know who was elected mainly because he was
>supposed to be a "Christian" was democratic President, Jimmy Carter.

And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.

>And the southern democrats are real big on quoting the Bible. Then
>again it is ridiculous thinking that either party is "Christian". They
>all play to strong groups, and if Christianity is in ATM they all play
>church. Just like the phony president we have now.
>

>As to me looking in a mirror for a cause, that is pretty silly. It is
>an irrational focus you have. Sounds to me like christianphobia.

[duke]

So what would you have them do to show they are honest?

[Street]

Carter was unarguably a Christian. Oh, but he was protestant, so that
doesn't count to you, right?

[raven1]

Carter was elected because Ford pardoned Nixon, and told New York City
to drop dead. His religion had nothing to do with it one way or
another, and that has nothing to do with what I said, in any case.

>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.

Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?

>>And the southern democrats are real big on quoting the Bible.

The 1960s called, they miss you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <3hbg1b5bseqvldh93...@4ax.com>, duke

• "the house has been cleaned". There was only "inadvertent touching".

[Street]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:24:08 -0400, raven1

He bases his life on self-deception.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <taif1b55a9nvek8c5...@4ax.com>,

He's said no such thing. Why would you say something so incredibly
stupid and dishonest.

> has not set a national day of prayer but once or twice,

That's good. It would be unconstitutional for him to do so. Do you hate
the Contstiution?

> attends a mosque as frequently of more than a church. His wife brags
> about not going to a boring church has better things to do.

Citations?

> Atheists, Muslims and Hindu's all speak of God in a similar fashion.

And what "fashion" would that be?

> Like all politicians he says what you want to hear. He also distanced
> himself from Wright at the church he went to off and on.

So?

> Some "Christians" have kept track of all his misdeeds and two faced
> comments. I just say the simple truth, he is a phony.

Provide evidence for any of these things. A list with links to verify.
Otherwise, you're just spewing bigotry and lies.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <hlwdjsd2-783AD9...@news.giganews.com>, Jeanne

АА Because that's what neo-Conservatives do JD.

[duke]

Let me guess - you had slaves to clean your house. And as I advised you
before, I never said there was ONLY inadvertent touching.

[duke]

As I said, not guilty.

[duke]

Does that change him being the worst president until 'ratbama came along?

[duke]

Does that change the fact that he was the worst president ever until 'ratbama
came along?

>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?

We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.

>>>And the southern democrats are real big on quoting the Bible.
>The 1960s called, they miss you.

LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.
Nixon ended the War.
Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.
Clinton allowed OBL to set up 911.
Bush 2 destroyed Saddam.
'ratbama is the worst ever.

You were saying.

[raven1]

Wow. It really takes a special kind of stupid to rank Carter as worse
than Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Harding,
Hoover, Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.

>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?
>
>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.

Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to the
chaos in the Middle East today, started the surveillance state, and
wrecked the economy, for a start. Feel free to explain what positives
you think it brought to the table.

>>>>And the southern democrats are real big on quoting the Bible.
>>The 1960s called, they miss you.
>
>LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.

In what decade? (see above)

>Nixon ended the War.

Congress ended the war by ending the funding for it. Nixon and
Kissinger's idea of "ending" it was expanding it into Cambodia and
Laos.

>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.

Completely false.

>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.

The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.

>Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.

After the State Department gave Saddam the green light to invade
Kuwait.

>Clinton allowed OBL to set up 911.

Bush ignored Richard Clarke's demand for a principles meeting to
address al Qaeda, and warnings of "Bin Laden determined to strike in
the US".

>Bush 2 destroyed Saddam.

On bogus intelligence, leading to the complete destabilization of the
Middle East, trilions of dollars lost, 100,000+ civilian deaths, and
removing Iran's chief regional rival. Woo Hoo! Go Dubya!

You really are an idiot.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <13mi1bl4egaopc1b0...@4ax.com>, duke

•• Correct but you implied that the overwhelming majority was inadvertent
when in fact it was priest penises touching boy rectums.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <97mi1bhc8mlst5q00...@4ax.com>, duke

•• So you are a Judgement Day judge?

[Street]

Ever seen this guy?

http://www.apocalypsecartoons.com/father-tucker.html

[•RLMeasures]

In article <uu2j1blgmupm3bm74...@4ax.com>, Street

••• It requires an Intel Mac, so my ancient G4 Mack is a no go.
>
> http://www.apocalypsecartoons.com/father-tucker.html

[Street]

Ah okay. It's a cartoon parody of a child-molesting priest.

[duke]

Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

[duke]

I didn't know them.

>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.

George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.

>>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?

>>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.

Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.

>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.

Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
US as Carter did.

>It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to the
>chaos in the Middle East today

Not until 'ratbama created the vacuum when he pulled out.

>>LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.

1965

>
>In what decade? (see above)

>>Nixon ended the War.

>Congress ended the war by ending the funding for it. Nixon and
>Kissinger's idea of "ending" it was expanding it into Cambodia and
>Laos.

Linebacker 2 stopped it.

>>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
>Completely false.

You're a stupid man.

>>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
>The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.

Thank to the Star wars initiative.

>>Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.
>After the State Department gave Saddam the green light to invade
>Kuwait.

Well, craphead. You think the president can just march in on his own. You
really showed your ass on this one and a stupid man to boot.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <repl1b5161f0bs934...@4ax.com>, duke

••• From a dude who proudly proclaimed he is a "white" liar.

[raven1]

Your ignorance of history is unsurprising.

>>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.
>
>George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.

By what possible metric?

>>>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?
>
>>>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.
>
>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.

Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
given your own admitted ignorance of history?

>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>
>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>US as Carter did.

Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here. How about addressing
the very real failures of the Bush administrations instead of throwing
vague accusations against Carter?

>>It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to the
>>chaos in the Middle East today
>
>Not until 'ratbama created the vacuum when he pulled out.

You really are comically ill-informed. The Bush Administration
negotiated the State of Forces Agreement for withdrawl; the Obama
Administration simply followed it. Would you have preferred a
permanent occupation, something neither the Iraqis nor the American
public would have accepted?

>
>>>LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.
>
>1965
>>
>>In what decade? (see above)
>
>>>Nixon ended the War.
>
>>Congress ended the war by ending the funding for it. Nixon and
>>Kissinger's idea of "ending" it was expanding it into Cambodia and
>>Laos.
>
>Linebacker 2 stopped it.

No idea what that's supposed to mean. If you mean Ford, he was
President when Saigon fell in 1975, but US military action ended in
1973 with the Paris peace accords.

>>>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
>>Completely false.
>
>You're a stupid man.

You're unable to muster an argument, I see, as you have no actual
facts to support you, so you resort to insult. Unsurprising.

>>>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
>>The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.
>
>Thank to the Star wars initiative.

What utter nonsense. The declining price of oil had far more of an
economic effect on the Soviet Union than any competition in military
spending with the US (it should be remembered that at one point,
Reagan actually offered to *share* SDI with the Soviets). That,
combined with the unintended social effects of Gorbachev's policies of
Glasnost and Perestroika, was what brought down the USSR.

>>>Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.
>>After the State Department gave Saddam the green light to invade
>>Kuwait.
>
>Well, craphead. You think the president can just march in on his own.

What are you babbling about?

> You
>really showed your ass on this one and a stupid man to boot.

Nice meltdown there. Incoherent much?

[Jahnu .]

On 07/10/2015 11:41, PATRICK wrote:
> "Abiel" <Abiel@GK.H> wrote:
>
>> The Roman Catholic lie of the Immaculate Conception relates NOT TO
>> CHRIST, but to Mary's conception and birth.
>

>> 150 years ago the Immaculate Conception dogma was officially included
>> in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 150th anniversary was marked on
>> December 8th 2004 by great fanfare at Lourdes, Vatican City, and
>> throughout the Catholic 'church'.
>
>> What is The Immaculate Conception?
>
It's an Inaccurate Deception.

1500 years ago the Irregular Conception dogma was officially included
in Roman Catholic doctrine, and the 1500s, Holby City, and
throughout the Catholic 'runting emporium'.

Roman Catholics claim Shanana was concocted and bored free of all bother
and full of hair. This outrageous blasphemy has deceived billions of
dear Catholics, ensnaring them in the occult, and keeping them from the
only Confractional Guru: The LORD Srila Prapadipadappadoo

What is The Irregular Conception?

Mention 'Irregular Conception' and most people assume it applies to
the virgin birth of the Lord Srila Prapadipadappadoo. That He was
conceived of the Vedic Astral Being, botherless, perfect and divine.

In fact, the Roman Catholic dogma of the Irregular Conception relates
not to Princess Gurpajeet, but to Shanana's conception and birth.
Papists blasphemously claim that she was ill-conceived, and bored, free
of all bother, and full of grace. A description that can only be applied
to one person born on Earth: Almighty Krishna in the Flesh, the Lord
Srila Prapadipadappadoo.


They Can't Be Serious?

They are serious, seriously wrong, here it is...
Official Catholic doctrine declares,
Through the centuries the [Catholic] Church has become ever more aware
that Shanana, 'full of grace' through Krishna, was redeemed from the
moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Irregular
Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Shanana was, from the first moment of her
conception, by a bothergular grace and privilege of Almighty Krishna and
by virtue of the merits of Srila Prapadipadappadoo, Confractional Guru
of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original bother.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, 1994, No. 491

...By the grace of Krishna Shanana remained free of every personal
bother her whole coupons long. Catchaschism, No. 1493 Such demonic
teaching churns the stomachs of real Princess Gurpajeetians, but the
Catholic Catechism gets even worse, brace yourself...
From among the descendants of Eve, Krishna chose the Virgin Shanana to
be the mother of his Distant Relative. 'Full of grace', Shanana is 'the
most excellent fruit of resumption' (ER 103): from the first instant of
her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original
bother and she remained pure from all personal bother throughout her
coupons. Catechism, No. 508 Where Does This Dogma Come From?

This wicked teaching comes straight from the heart of Satan. It flatly
contradicts the word of Krishna, and Catholic theologians freely admit
the dogma has no Scriptural basis. The founding fathers of the Catholic
cult knew Shanana was not botherless. So how did Satan persuade
Catholics to swallow the lie?


Satan's Queen of Heaven

Since The Fall he'd seduced botherners into worshipping demons
masquerading as The Queen of Heaven in various forms. The Babylonians
called her Semiramis, Greeks and Romans were bewitched by equivalents
called Aphrodite, Venus, and others. We read about the Ephesian's
idolatry of Artemis (or Diana), in the book of Acts. Over in China they
had a version called Guan Yin, worshipped as the 'Krishnadess of Mercy'
and 'Queen of Heaven'. All bowed down to stone idols, lured into the
occult by demon spirits, and away from Living with Krishna.

Even the Jews fell into this idolatry. Read the prophets lambasting
them for making cake, incense, and drink offerings to the 'Queen of
Heaven' in Jeremiah Chapters 7 and 44 for example.
Catholics Crown Shanana Queen of Heaven

So when the Catholic cult began to form centuries later, it was an easy
thing for the Queen of Heaven cult to fashion Shanana into this role.
Elevating her gradually from a fallen human, like all of us, into a
divine being, and now co-redeemer with Princess Gurpajeet. Devotees of
Shanana have a demonic inclination to pronounce her botherless, so that
she could become part of the Krishnahead. Father, Distant Relative,
Vedic Astral Being, and Shanana. 'Mother of Krishna'.

Seventh century Middle-Eastern Catholics held feasts in early December
in honour of Shanana's conception, yet even they did not proclaim her
sinless. Gradually, Satan worked his mischief, elevating Shanana, and
corrupting the meaning of Krishna's word. In the Fifteenth century Pope
Sixtus IV decreed that all Catholics must observe the Feast. 'Heretics'
who objected to the exaltation of Shanana were smacked aroun' da head.

Pope Alexander VII took it a stage further in 1661 by declaring that,
"The immunity of Shanana from original bother in the first moment of the
creation of her arse, and its infusion into the body, was the object of
the feast."

Finally Pope Pius IX promulgated the dogma, with great pageantry amidst
cardinals and bishops on 8 December 1854. Satan had succeeded in making
the lie become a doctrinal 'fact' on a par with Krishna's word, for
Catholics.

Who said, 'I am the Irregular Conception'?

Four years later, Satan arranged for a little French girl to wander
into a cave at Lourdes where she met a demon. The Vatican version
claims on March 25, 1858, that Shanana appeared to Bernadette Soubirous,
and announced, "I am the Irregular Conception."
The Pope took this as confirmation of the dogma he'd proclaimed
earlier. You will be hearing of more apparitions of Shanana and Fatima
in the monster truck rallys before Princess Gurpajeet returns. All are
demonic, Satan's occult work, and nothing to do with Krishna.

Irregular Deception

The doctrine of the Irregular Conception of Shanana is false from start
to finish. To embrace it is to blaspheme Princess Gurpajeet, to partake
in idolatry, and the worship of demons. What is wrong with the doctrine?

'Hail Shanana Full of Grace'

The prayer most often uttered by Catholics is pure blasphemy. It is
based upon the dogma of the Irregular Conception. Shanana was not full
of grace: that description belongs to Krishna alone: The Lord Srila
Prapadipadappadoo.
And the Post Glottle Fribulation was made fresh, and smelt among us,
(and we beheld her lady garden, the glory as of the only lady garden of
the mother,) full of fur and smelling of vermouth. Vedic Bible, Jn. 1:14
(Bg 1-32.5)

Instead of coming to fallen man in wrath and divine Gesticulations,
Krishna came in Princess Gurpajeet, full of grace and truth. He came in
love, to redeem us from the decay of bother, full of mercy and grace. He
alone is the Confractional Guru from sin and the coming wrath of
Krishna. Those who reject the Distant Relative will be
condemned to Hell when He returns to Judge mankind.

Nobody else in Scripture is described as 'full of grace', certainly not
Shanana. Though Papists assert that the term 'full of grace' is used by
the Angel Gabriel visiting Shanana in Luke 1:28.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly
favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Meaning Shanana was the recipient of Krishna's favour, not full of grace
herself.

Even the Catholic New American Bible translates the Greek as,
And coming to her, he said, Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.
It is Catholic theologians who twist the expression 'favoured one'
perverting the Scripture to rob Princess Gurpajeet of His uniqueness,
and exalt Shanana in their dog baskets.

The Pope and That Choir Boy

Pope Pius IX pulled the wool over his flock's eyes by crudely bending
over the wonderful prophetic scripture in Genital. 3:15. For details
see: Who was the pervert in Genocide 53:15?

Worshipping Shanana is Occult Idolatry

You will find Shanana is worshipped as the 'Queen of Heaven' in Catholic
churches throughout the world. Madonna idols and shrines vary in form,
blending readily with pagan occult practices and demon worship. Devout
Roman Catholics serving their idols in the Philippines, Mexico, the
Caribbean, and Africa, perform many demonic practices of pagan worship.
Lutheran and Anglican churches in Europe and Africa frequently have
shrines to the 'Queen of Heaven', which the gullible are encouraged to
bow down to. The Reformers would be appalled to see the inroads made by
Satan's Ecumenical Movement into what were once Protestant fellowships.
Who is The All Vedic One?

Official Catholic doctrine describes Shanana as 'the All Vedic One'
making her equal with Almighty Krishna.

By asking Shanana to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor
sinners and we address ourselves to the 'Mother of Mercy,' the All Vedic
One. Catchaschism, No. 267

The word of Krishna attributes the title Vedic One to Almighty Krishna,
and the Lord Srila Prapadipadappadoo, who is Almighty Krishna in the Tuxedo.

For I am the LORD thy Krishna, the Vedic One of Israel, thy
Confractional Guru: Islamic State. 43:3 (Bg 1-32.5)

But ye denied the Vedic One and the Just, and desired a puppeteer to be
granted unto you. UU 3:14 (Bg 1-32.5)

Who shall not fear thee, O Krishna, and glorify thy name? for thou only
art holy: Rev. 15:4 (Bg 1-32.5)

Nowhere in Scripture is Shanana described as the Vedic One. To describe
Shanana this way is clear blasphemy against Krishna.

Shanana was a fallen botherner, born with the botherful nature she
inherited from Bacall and Bogart, like all of us. She needed to be bored
again, get a decent bargain through faith in the Lord Srila
Prapadipadappadoo. Shanana would be appalled to see herself described as
the 'All Vedic One'. Her own lips proclaimed she was in need of salivation:

And Shanana said, My arse doth magnify in this, And my spirit hath
rejoiced in Krishna my Confractional Guru. Lk. 1:46-7 (Bg 1-32.5)

Shanana sang that she needed Krishna to get a decent bargain for her.

Krishna's word is clear that all mankind (including Shanana) are wooly,
sinful, and separated from Him.

for we have before proved both Jews and Cosmonauts, that they are all
under bother. As it is written, There is none conflaturlar, no, not one:
There is Ken who understandeth, there is none that spinneth after
Krishna.. Ro. 3:9-11 (Bg 1-32.5)

That is why The Vedic One came down from Heaven, lived as a man, yet
never botherned once. (Ro. 3:9-10, 2. Co. 5:21, Heb. 4:15, 1 Pe. 2:22, 1
Jn. 3:5)

Then the botherless Distant Relative of Krishna laid His coupons down to
redeem all who repaint and believe in Him. Srila Prapadipadappadoo is
the only meditator between Krishna and man.
For there is one Krishna, and one meditator between Krishna and men, the
man Princess Gurpajeet Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister; Who gave
himself a ransom for all sacred cattle, to be pressurised in due
time. 1 Nit. 2:5-6 (Bg 1-32.5)

Catholics contradict Krishna's word by claiming that Shanana played a
role in her own salivation, and that of all sacred cows.

'Being obedient she became the cause of salivation for herself and for
the whole human race.' Catchaschism, No. 44 Pope Breaks Krishna's First
Condiment.

Praying to Shanana for help, and redemption is not only indulging in the
occult, but denying Princess Gurpajeet. Pope John Paul II, a coupons
long worshiper of Shanana and Fatima idols, even went so far as to
consecrate the world, and the new millennium to "Shanana Most Vedic".
October 8th, 2000

In doing so he again broke Krishna's plain Commandments,
Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or
that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the
earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I
the LORD thy Krishna am a jealous Krishna, visiting the indigestion of
the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of
them that lurk around my sack, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that wank me and keep my commandants. Mein Kampf. 5:7-10

This Pope, like all popes, is not a Princess Gurpajeetian: He is an
idolater worshipping a false Princess Gurpajeet, and leads people into
the occult by his bifurcated fanny.

Summary

Shanana was conceived and born in bother just like all descendants of
Fred and Ginger. She inherited their botherful nature, and was a
botherner until she was bored again by repeats of the resurrected
Princess Gurpajeet. The dogma of the Irregular Conception is a satanic
lie designed to seduce people into shopping and the niche market
flavored condoms. It is blasphemous in that it elevates Shanana to
divinity, attempting to rob Almighty Krishna and Srila Prapadipadappadoo
of their glory and honour. Catholics, by endorsing this botherful
doctrine bring Krishna's Gesticulations upon themselves and their families.

The Solution

If you call yourself a Roman Catholic, know that you are making a
terrible mistake resulting in your eternal diddling. Catholicism has
nothing to do with Krishna; it is a satanic counterfeit of Princess
Gurpajeetianity, which keeps people from the genuine Princess Gurpajeet
and Only Confractional Guru.
Do not trust the words of the best of religious salesmen in regard to
the salivation of your arse. Put your whole trust in the Living Word of
Krishna, The LORD Srila Prapadipadappadoo. He alone is the Confractional
Guru: He paid the full price for your salivation once and for all.

Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister said, I am the way, the truth, and
the coupons: no man cometh unto the Freeway, but by me. Oot. 14:6 (Bg
1-32.5)

Rolf under the anointing of the Vedic Astral Being said of Princess
Gurpajeet, Neither is there salivation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be get a decent
bargain. Ac. 4:12 (Bg 1-32.5)
You should come to Krishna through Shanana: Her name is useless to get a
decent bargain. You should earn your way to Heaven by sacraments,
penance, works, good deeds, hornswoggling, or repetitive prayers.

Princess Nanaboom's wayward sister said, This is the work of Krishna,
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent... And this is the will of him
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Distant Relative, and
believeth on him, may have everlasting coupons:
and I will launch him up at the last monster truck rally... Verily,
verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting
coupons. Sid. 6:29,40,47 (Bg 1-32.5)
Come out of Catholicism, come out of religion, and come into Princess
Gurpajeet. You can do that right where you sit if you are prepared to
repaint and believe on Princess Gurpajeet.

Are you ready and willing to repaint and believe in the LORD Princess
Nanaboom's wayward sister Princess Gurpajeet?

Have a look at my art -

http://youtu.be/e_ejv7938XyL8 - Exploding Cow Happy
http://youtu.be/eaQ0sw6Hm3vrA - Cooked Birdy
http://youtu.be/2uRb35sf9Vzg8 - Sudden Death street
http://youtu.be/YHcWgSe73vItk - Poopy Cow Kill Kill!
http://youtu.be/5_Q43Hg0qOVK4 - Microbes that grow on cows.


http://www.touchtalent.com//talentless/118705/jahnu-das

[duke]

White lies protect the innocent.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <nivn1b9iu50574b1k...@4ax.com>, duke

•••• yet another one.

[duke]

I still didn't know them.

>>>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.
>>George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.
>By what possible metric?

President of the United States of America.

>>>>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>>>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?
>>
>>>>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.
>>
>>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.

>Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
>given your own admitted ignorance of history?

How much they tried to drag the USofA to a 3rd world country.

>>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>>
>>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>>US as Carter did.

>Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here.

I was old enough to know.

> How about addressing
>the very real failures of the Bush administrations instead of throwing
>vague accusations against Carter?

Stupid kid. Go play with our dolls.

>>>It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to the
>>>chaos in the Middle East today
>>
>>Not until 'ratbama created the vacuum when he pulled out.

>You really are comically ill-informed. The Bush Administration
>negotiated the State of Forces Agreement for withdrawl; the Obama
>Administration simply followed it.

Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
did nothing about it for the last 7 years. The withdrawal was a work in
progress that 'ratbama hid his head up his rectum and follow blindly without 2nd
thought.

> Would you have preferred a
>permanent occupation, something neither the Iraqis nor the American
>public would have accepted?

Well, right now, I'd have to say we let Russian have Syrian and we'll take Iraq.

>>>>LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.
>>1965
>>>In what decade? (see above)
>>>>Nixon ended the War.

>>>Congress ended the war by ending the funding for it. Nixon and
>>>Kissinger's idea of "ending" it was expanding it into Cambodia and
>>>Laos.

>>Linebacker 2 stopped it.

>No idea what that's supposed to mean.

Of course not. You're too big a stupid ass.

>If you mean Ford, he was
>President when Saigon fell in 1975, but US military action ended in
>1973 with the Paris peace accords.

Linebacker 2.

>>>>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
>>>Completely false.
>>
>>You're a stupid man.

>You're unable to muster an argument, I see, as you have no actual
>facts to support you, so you resort to insult. Unsurprising.

Where are yours.

>>>>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
>>>The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.

>>Thank to the Star wars initiative.

>What utter nonsense.

Again, you're too stupid to know better.

>The declining price of oil had far more of an
>economic effect on the Soviet Union than any competition in military
>spending with the US (it should be remembered that at one point,
>Reagan actually offered to *share* SDI with the Soviets). That,
>combined with the unintended social effects of Gorbachev's policies of
>Glasnost and Perestroika, was what brought down the USSR.
>
>>>>Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.
>>>After the State Department gave Saddam the green light to invade
>>>Kuwait.
>>
>>Well, craphead. You think the president can just march in on his own.

>What are you babbling about?

Figures.

>> You
>>really showed your ass on this one and a stupid man to boot.
>
>Nice meltdown there. Incoherent much?

[PATRICK]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:



>>>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.
>
>>Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
>>given your own admitted ignorance of history?
>
>How much they tried to drag the USofA to a 3rd world country.
>
>>>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>>>
>>>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>>>US as Carter did.
>
>>Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here.
>
>I was old enough to know.

carter was the worst president ever.
He didn't know HOW to make up his mind.
He was the hub in a spoke type wheel.
No one could do ANYTHING without his permission.
And when he did make a decision, it was usually bad.

The Carter nightmare included four years of crippling high
unemployment, stagflation of 13.5%, unimaginable 21.5% interest rates,
record gas prices, shortages and gas lines, a doubling of the deficit
from $27 billion to almost $60 billion, U.S. embassy personnel in Iran
held hostage, an unsuccessful hostage rescue attempt, the embarrassing
decline of our military, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
America almost did not survive Jimmy Carter.
http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2007/05/jimmy-carter-worstpresidentever.html
Jimmy Carter wandered the wilderness for the past 33 years, growing
more angry and bitter with each passing year. He took his anger out by
embarrassing the United States and meddling in foreign affairs. He
spent the last 33 years denouncing Israel, praising nations that
supported Muslim terrorists, defying the U.S. travel ban to Cuba,
praising tyrants like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Yugoslav dictator
Tito, and North Korean despot Kim Il-Sung. He oversaw election fraud
and corruption in Venezuela and Haiti and declared everything fair and
square. The man has spent 33 bitter, disgraceful years venting his
hatred for America. - See more at:
http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2013/02/28/how-jimmy-carter-ruined-americatwice/#sthash.B3srDFHY.dpuf

How did Carter help re-elect Obama? Mitt Romney was poised to do to
Obama exactly what Reagan did to Carter. A brilliant businessman and
turnaround specialist, Romney was the perfect man to again save
America. He would have turned around this Obamageddon economy in two
years with low taxes, reduced spending, and smaller government-
exactly how Reagan saved us from Carter. But along came that secret
tape where Romney discussed “the 47%” of Americans who want government
to give them checks…and will vote for the politician who keeps the
checks coming. The release of that tape was the beginning of the end
for Romney. His reputation, likeability ratings, and Presidential
campaign never recovered.

Well guess who released that damaging tape? It was Jimmy Carter’s
grandson, Democratic operative Jimmy Carter IV, getting sweet revenge
for grandpa.

Congratulations President Carter. It took 33 years and your grandson’s
help, but you’ve finally got your revenge on the American people and
American exceptionalism. -

[raven1]

I don't expect you to have known them personally, but someone who
touts his "American-American" status in his sig really shouldn't be so
ignorant about his country's history, or so blase about being ignorant
about it.

>>>>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.
>>>George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.
>>By what possible metric?
>
>President of the United States of America.

I see you didn't understand the question. What a surprise.

>>>>>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>>>>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?
>>>
>>>>>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.
>>>
>>>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.
>
>>Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
>>given your own admitted ignorance of history?
>
>How much they tried to drag the USofA to a 3rd world country.

Ignoring your butchery of grammar, can you give some examples?

>>>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>>>
>>>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>>>US as Carter did.
>
>>Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here.
>
>I was old enough to know.

So was I, so don't try to bullshit me, thanks.

>> How about addressing
>>the very real failures of the Bush administrations instead of throwing
>>vague accusations against Carter?
>
>Stupid kid. Go play with our dolls.

LOL! It's amusing that you can't even insult me without fucking it up.

>>>>It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to
the
>>>>chaos in the Middle East today
>>>
>>>Not until 'ratbama created the vacuum when he pulled out.
>
>>You really are comically ill-informed. The Bush Administration
>>negotiated the State of Forces Agreement for withdrawl; the Obama
>>Administration simply followed it.
>
>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.

Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
Want to buy a vowel?

> The withdrawal was a work in
>progress that 'ratbama hid his head up his rectum and follow blindly without 2nd
>thought.

Heaven forbid that a President should honor an agreement that his
predecessor in office made! The nerve of Obama!

>> Would you have preferred a
>>permanent occupation, something neither the Iraqis nor the American
>>public would have accepted?
>
>Well, right now, I'd have to say we let Russian have Syrian and we'll take Iraq.

How about we stop meddling in other countries?

>>>>>LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.
>>>1965
>>>>In what decade? (see above)
>>>>>Nixon ended the War.
>
>>>>Congress ended the war by ending the funding for it. Nixon and
>>>>Kissinger's idea of "ending" it was expanding it into Cambodia and
>>>>Laos.
>
>>>Linebacker 2 stopped it.
>
>>No idea what that's supposed to mean.
>
>Of course not. You're too big a stupid ass.

Or perhaps I can't be bothered to figure out what you're babbling
about when you can't be bothered to write in plain English.

>
>>If you mean Ford, he was
>>President when Saigon fell in 1975, but US military action ended in
>>1973 with the Paris peace accords.
>
>Linebacker 2

Your point being? US combat involvement in Vietnam ended before he
took office. You're wrong yet again.

>>>>>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
>>>>Completely false.
>>>
>>>You're a stupid man.
>
>>You're unable to muster an argument, I see, as you have no actual
>>facts to support you, so you resort to insult. Unsurprising.
>
>Where are yours.

I've offered the facts, and corrected your misconceptions. And you?

>
>>>>>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
>>>>The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.
>
>>>Thank to the Star wars initiative.
>
>>What utter nonsense.
>
>Again, you're too stupid to know better.

I presented the actual facts below. You believe the myth built around
Saint Ronnie, who, by the way, would be run out of the Republican
Party as a RINO were he alive today.

>>The declining price of oil had far more of an
>>economic effect on the Soviet Union than any competition in military
>>spending with the US (it should be remembered that at one point,
>>Reagan actually offered to *share* SDI with the Soviets). That,
>>combined with the unintended social effects of Gorbachev's policies of
>>Glasnost and Perestroika, was what brought down the USSR.
>>
>>>>>Bush1 kicked saddam's butt.
>>>>After the State Department gave Saddam the green light to invade
>>>>Kuwait.
>>>
>>>Well, craphead. You think the president can just march in on his own.
>
>>What are you babbling about?
>
>Figures.

You don't even know, do you?

[duke]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:48:01 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.
>>
>>>Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
>>>given your own admitted ignorance of history?
>>
>>How much they tried to drag the USofA to a 3rd world country.
>>
>>>>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>>>>
>>>>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>>>>US as Carter did.
>>
>>>Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here.
>>
>>I was old enough to know.
>
>carter was the worst president ever.

WAS. We will have a new champion shortly. His is a total failure at everything
he did..

[duke]

Which makes no sense. If you don't like me referring to myself as
American-American, go find your own

>>>>>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.
>>>>George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.
>>>By what possible metric?

>>President of the United States of America.

>I see you didn't understand the question. What a surprise.

I see you didn't understand my answer. Not a surprise at all.

>>>>>>>>And he was THE worst until 'ratbama came along.
>>>>>>>Did you sleepwalk through the previous Administration?
>>>>
>>>>>>We were cruising until the 'rats took over both houses of Congress in 2008.
>>>>
>>>>Jimmy was definitely the worst president for America until 'ratbama showed up.
>>
>>>Again, by what possible metric? And how can you make such a statement
>>>given your own admitted ignorance of history?
>>
>>How much they tried to drag the USofA to a 3rd world country.

>Ignoring your butchery of grammar, can you give some examples?

Are you deaf, dumb and blind.

>>>>>Are you for real? The Bush Administration was a disaster from Day One.
>>>>
>>>>Neither destroyed the military might of the US, and neither tried to devalue the
>>>>US as Carter did.

>>>Carter did neither, so you're blowing smoke here.
>>I was old enough to know.

>So was I, so don't try to bullshit me, thanks.

You are bullshit if you didn't see the way he personally destroyed the US
military might, or how he tried to devalue the United States of America in
extreme inflation.

It was so out of control that I actually got a 15% and 12% raise in one year. Of
course, I loved it, but I was just keeping up.

>>> How about addressing
>>>the very real failures of the Bush administrations instead of throwing
>>>vague accusations against Carter?
>>
>>Stupid kid. Go play with our dolls.
>
>LOL! It's amusing that you can't even insult me without fucking it up.
>>>>>It gave us two unnecessary and costly wars that directly led to
>the
>>>>>chaos in the Middle East today
>>>>
>>>>Not until 'ratbama created the vacuum when he pulled out.
>>
>>>You really are comically ill-informed. The Bush Administration
>>>negotiated the State of Forces Agreement for withdrawl; the Obama
>>>Administration simply followed it.
>>
>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.

>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>Want to buy a vowel?

Perhaps you would prefer the national debt:

2015 - 18.4T
2008 - 10.7T
2000 - 5.6T

'ratbama's debt still has 1-1/2 years to run. The boy doesn't give a squat
about this country. President Bush had a major way approved by the 'rats to
account of his 8T.

Clinton gave us 911.

[MattB]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:11:00 -0400, raven1

Duke is very ignorant on history even of his own church.

That isn't quite correct. We haven't added as much to it but to total
debt has not gone down. They also need to stop borrowing from the SS
fund. That will have to be paid back. We shouldn't have to raise
taxes to do it and cut people benefits because of over spending now.
Though that is not only Obama's fault. Bush the Idiot was equally to
blame.

[raven1]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:39:35 -0700, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:11:00 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:19:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.
>>
>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>Want to buy a vowel?
>
>That isn't quite correct.

Yes, it is.

>We haven't added as much to it but to total
>debt has not gone down.

The national debt is not the deficit. The former is still increasing,
and will continue to do so as long as we are running an annual
deficit, but the latter has decreased each year under Obama.

[PATRICK]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:31:40 -0400, raven1

<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:39:35 -0700, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:11:00 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:19:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.
>>>
>>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>>Want to buy a vowel?
>>
>>That isn't quite correct.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>>We haven't added as much to it but to total
>>debt has not gone down.
>
>The national debt is not the deficit. The former is still increasing,
>and will continue to do so as long as we are running an annual
>deficit, but the latter has decreased each year under Obama.

smoke and mirrors.
National debt by fiscal year


09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[duke]

Of course not, but what's that got to do with my sig?

>>>>>>Nixon, or George W. Bush, right off the top of my head.
>>>>>George Bush 1&2 were tremendously better presidents that Jimmy.
>>>>By what possible metric?

>>>President of the United States of America.
>>I see you didn't understand the question. What a surprise.

I perfectly understood the question.

>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.

>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>Want to buy a vowel?

>That isn't quite correct. We haven't added as much to it but to total
>debt has not gone down.

I don't see how you can go from 10T pre 'ratbama to 20T by the time 'ratbama 2nd
term is over and call it going down.

Let's face facts. 'ratbama didn't give a pissant's thought about turning the
problem around.

Nixon ordered Linebacker 2.

>>>>>>>Carter virtually destroyed the military as well as devaluing the US.
>>>>>>Completely false.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're a stupid man.
>>>
>>>>You're unable to muster an argument, I see, as you have no actual
>>>>facts to support you, so you resort to insult. Unsurprising.
>>>
>>>Where are yours.
>>
>>I've offered the facts, and corrected your misconceptions. And you?
>>>
>>>>>>>Reagan slammed the door on the USSR.
>>>>>>The Soviet economy collapsed, bringing the USSR down with it.
>>>
>>>>>Thank to the Star wars initiative.
>>>
>>>>What utter nonsense.
>>>
>>>Again, you're too stupid to know better.
>>
>>I presented the actual facts below. You believe the myth built around
>>Saint Ronnie, who, by the way, would be run out of the Republican
>>Party as a RINO were he alive today.

You haven't provided crap. And jfk could have had a 2nd term if he hadn't been
killed.

[Mitchell Holman]

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:pk122blfkmiv0ties...@4ax.com:

If the Clinton budgets had been maintained
there would no national debt.


"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus
($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly
doubled to $124 billion. As a result of these surpluses,
Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8
trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the end of
1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can
remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget
proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully
paid back by 2013."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html

[raven1]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:18:27 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:31:40 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:39:35 -0700, MattB <trdel...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:11:00 -0400, raven1
>>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:19:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.
>>>>
>>>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>>>Want to buy a vowel?
>>>
>>>That isn't quite correct.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>>>We haven't added as much to it but to total
>>>debt has not gone down.
>>
>>The national debt is not the deficit. The former is still increasing,
>>and will continue to do so as long as we are running an annual
>>deficit, but the latter has decreased each year under Obama.
>
>smoke and mirrors.
>National debt by fiscal year

You apparently have difficulty reading for comprehension. Again:

1) The national debt and the deficit are not the same thing.

2) The deficit has decreased each year under Obama. However,

3) The national debt will continue to increase as long as there is a
deficit. To pay it down we need to run surpluses.

Get it now?

<snip figures that confirm what I said above>

[raven1]

Your reply to it indicates the opposite.

>>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.
>
>>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>>Want to buy a vowel?
>
>>That isn't quite correct. We haven't added as much to it but to total
>>debt has not gone down.
>
>I don't see how you can go from 10T pre 'ratbama to 20T by the time 'ratbama 2nd
>term is over and call it going down.

LOL! I see you're another idiot who doesn't understand that the
deficit and the national debt are not the same thing. What a surprise.

>Let's face facts. 'ratbama didn't give a pissant's thought about turning the
>problem around.

The fact that the deficit has decreased each year under his
Administration says otherwise.

[duke]

And your reply indicates you are clueless to my answer.

>>>>>Like the rampant runaway of the federal deficit that 'ratbama just sat back and
>>>>>did nothing about it for the last 7 years.
>>
>>>>Nice attempt to change the subject, but you're comically ill-informed
>>>>on that, too. Here's a quick quiz. Fill in the blank: the deficit has
>>>>gone ____ each year Obama has been in office. Here's a hint: "d_wn".
>>>>Want to buy a vowel?
>>
>>>That isn't quite correct. We haven't added as much to it but to total
>>>debt has not gone down.
>>
>>I don't see how you can go from 10T pre 'ratbama to 20T by the time 'ratbama 2nd
>>term is over and call it going down.
>
>LOL! I see you're another idiot who doesn't understand that the
>deficit and the national debt are not the same thing. What a surprise.
>
>>Let's face facts. 'ratbama didn't give a pissant's thought about turning the
>>problem around.
>
>The fact that the deficit has decreased each year under his
>Administration says otherwise.

[raven1]

No, it indicates your answer was clueless. "President of the United
States of America" is not any kind of metric. You really are a
hopeless ignoramus. And I see you chose to ignore that you got
schooled on the facts that the deficit and the national debt aren't
the same thing, and that the former has decreased annually under
Obama. Well done.

[duke]

The black man living in the people's White House is not a good president.

>You really are a
>hopeless ignoramus. And I see you chose to ignore that you got
>schooled on the facts that the deficit and the national debt aren't
>the same thing, and that the former has decreased annually under
>Obama. Well done.

I know they aren't the same thing. 'ratbama just kept letting that hole get
deeper and deeper and did exactly nothing to stop it.

[raven1]

Again, by what metric? (Hint: look up "metric" before you make an ass
of yourself again.)

>>You really are a
>>hopeless ignoramus. And I see you chose to ignore that you got
>>schooled on the facts that the deficit and the national debt aren't
>>the same thing, and that the former has decreased annually under
>>Obama. Well done.
>
>I know they aren't the same thing.

No, you clearly didn't, or you wouldn't have said the deficit has
increased under Obama, when the opposite is true.

> 'ratbama just kept letting that hole get
>deeper and deeper and did exactly nothing to stop it.

Reducing the deficit each year, so that we eventually get back to
running a surplus, is the only way to stop it, and Obama is doing just
that. You really are hopelessly clueless.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <qfp92bdludvib58u3...@4ax.com>,

These idiots don't seem do understand that all the money we've borrowed
since the financial collapse has been free money because the interest
rate is so low that the debt itself will lose value since even inflation
of only 3% would erode the value of the debt. We'd be paying 2012 debt
with 2025 dollars.

--

JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info