Yeah and Kfir is understandably emotional too...sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Frankly, I am not sure how much more evidence you need after the article I posted on the Conservative board regarding Mike Wallace's interview with Iran's president.  You made allegations that Christians are only now interested in Israel because we see *the end* coming.  That just isn't so.  But you state it as fact, not as a personal opinion.  Maybe that is where the disconnect lies, that what you perceive has become fact to you.  As far as personal attacks, I haven't attacked you. You have to admit, though, that your question to Kfir about why the Israeli army did not fight in Iraq was kind of startling in light of what happened in the Gulf war and in light of the hatred between Israeli and Arab.   I would love to debate you, but I don't think we would be debating so much as defending our own belief system.  Again, I say this respectfully and this is based on reading your posts here. Your aggression towards Kfir and his defense of his country is puzzling to me.  Yet you felt the one attacked.  There is just too much emotion here.  This milieu is just not conducive to logical debate.  People say things they would not ordinarily say in person.  I thought the remark you make to Kfir about him not being representative of most Israeli was offensive.  I do, believe this conversation has become way too personal, on all levels.

I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith.  It was all about the war.  It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion.  Isn't that 2 different things?

based on perceived danger.  Trying to "reason" with fear or fight emotion with "facts" is fruitless.  The dems have millions of new voters registered, we are not overly concerned about losing a few votes from those ruled by emotion rather than reason. That's what democracy is all about.  Vote or not vote based on any whatever floats your boat.

That's exactly what I said.  Scarborough has always supported Bush.  There is a difference between supporting and blindly following.  For example, you see nothing wrong with how this case was handled.  You see nothing wrong with Bush lying every time he opens his mouth.  That's blind faith.

Scarborough is an objective Republican who believes in honesty.  I realize this is a difficult concept for some CONS to understand.  Once upon a time, honesty was considered a good thing in the United States.  People who were honest were considered to have moral character and integrity.  Scarborough is one of those rare of Republicans, totally foreign to you, I'm sure.

To blindly follow (which I'm sure you're quite familiar with) means worshiping a man as if he's some kind of god, believing every single word he says, even when you see evidence to the contrary right before your eyes.   He lies every day; those who follow blindly believe him every day.  And when it becomes common knowledge that he's lied and when they can't twist and manipulate the lie out of recognition any more, then his blind followers make excuses for him, usually blaming democrats or anyone else who is handy but never blaming the liar himself.  And they justify all the lying because they have that special *connection* with God.  They can lie all they want and God just winks at them and says it's okay because their place in heaven has already been guaranteed, unlike the rest of us poor slobs out there without that special connection.

The only thing that scares me more than Bush having the same credibility as Al Qaeda is the fact that there are so many morons who blindly follow him, who just aren't smart enough to figure out that Bush was never on their side - he's only on the side of big money.  He even joked about his *base* - the *haves* and the *have nots.*

By the way, you are on the liberal board.  If you don't care for the liberal point of view, the CON board is ---->

I was responding to this:  *And know a lot PK. I know A LOT about your posting habits more than you could ever imagine.*  I was accused of doing something I simply didn't do, so that just shows me how much you people really DO know, and, yes, I can *imagine* a LOT when faced with this kind of ominous post. 

Those of your ilk have dark histories of murdering people of different beliefs (for example, personnel at abortion clinics), and the latest tactic of the Neocons is intimidation and retribution.  Just ask Valerie Plame, who used to have a career before her husband spoke the truth.

If someone said that to you on your board, you'd be accusing them of threatening to assassinate you and contacting the FBI.  Who are you KIDDING?  Typical neocon double standard and hypocrisy at work again. 

but the point is, the far left hates Cheney as much or more than Bush, so impeach Bush, get Cheney, then what?  Impeach Cheney?  Then you get Hastert. I know the far left doesn't like him. Impeach him and get Ted Stevens.  He's a Republican, too.  (President pro tempore of the Senate).  Impeach him and get...Condi Rice...if she isn't buying shoes.  What have you gained. Absolutely nothing. Well...maybe some payback for Clinton, which is what this is all about anyway.  Why not just wait until 2008 and vote the bums out.