amazing

• Does anyone else have a problem - Chele
  • What a difference a day makes. - Why just yesterday, shelly and sam were
    • Ha Ha! You nailed that right on the noggin! - sm
    • This post is just ridiculous - Chele
      • that's where you took it, not me. - I believe what I said was
        • Where are you getting that I - Chele
      • No, it might be you who is twisted, sistah! - sm
        • Ya know...we don't allow underage - Chele
      • give it a few years - shelly
        • YEAH! I'm sure we on this board - Can Do That!
          • credible? - shelly
        • Off the deep end a bit, are we? - Thank you for demonstrating exactly WHY
    • Very Very well Stated - MTPockets
    • another thing - shelly
      • So how do you know that pervs are hanging out - at the library...sm
        • amazing - shelly
          • Different stroke for different folks. - Only the narrowest of minds would
            • can you not read? My name isnt Chele - shelly
        • So you are saying that you would not - sm
    • first of all - shelly
      • Sorry Shelly, but the common thread - between the two posts is
        • Nope - shelly
          • Nope yourself. - You do the oversight, govt upholds constitution.
      • Add to this............. sm - m
        • rubber boots - shelly
  • I sure has heck do. I found out days ago - and immediately called my senators
  • I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one... - sm
  • I emailed both my senators........... sm - m
    • Reasoning? Not here. - sm
      • You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden? - Backwards typist
      • Reasoning........... sm - m
        • News flash, m... - SM
          • And the more I learn........... sm - m
            • And the more I see of this type of intolerance.. - sm
              • I am squeezing my Bible right now - shelly
                • I don't know where you live.... - sm
              • Intolerance??? sm - m
            • More like narrow minded people - Who can't make a point
              • The Bible for one.......... sm - m
              • Here, here. - Sign me up for a bit of wicked. nm
        • Perhaps a complete history of this issue - sm
          • How's this for a history........ sm - m
            • Ethics and Legal Ethics - sm
              • And if his moral compass was pointing sm - m
                • But it isn't your decision to make, is it? - sm
          • Here's the links for ya. - Backwards typist
          • Ogden basically feels that - Chele

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

I didn't specify who I was talking about when I said there are some people on this board who distort the truth and make things up.  But the ones I see doing that the most are the ones who posted a reply to my observation and were on the defensive when the did. 

that a lot of our "laws" are laws that are also spoken of in the Bible?  Wonder if that is a coincidence?

I've heard that most prisoners "get religion" when the are incarcerated.  I have heard they embrace all kinds of religion including wiccianism (if that's a word).  I don't know if this is true or not but lacking anything better to do at the moment, I think I'll research it as it strikes my interest.

Who said anything about the US being the head of that one-world government?

I have no idea.  I didn't.  I said under the same rule -- not necessarily under US rule.

I don't believe that the US will even exist as we know it by the time the one-world government comes into effect, much less have any power in a one-world government.

One can only hope.

And it is not based on speculation. It is based on the book of Revelation.

Why is it that when someone on this board says anything about relgion having a negative impact on legislation you guys get all upset, but when we look at the future of our government it's supposed to based on a 2000-year-old ghost story?   Why don't we just start looking into crystal balls.

I think this lends a great deal of credance to the theory that this election was engineered from the get-go and Obama was manufactured for this from birth.  Probably the scariest thing is that over half the people in the US will never believe this, even with documentations staring them rignt in the face,  and will just holler "sore losers" even louder than before.

I found this post there interesting:  "Not directly related to the original subject of our thread but the Reverend Joseph Lowery is going to be giving the major benediction at the Obama inauguration. Although the NY Times and Washington Post will not mention it, Lowery was the recipient of a free trip to Lybia courtesy of Muamar Qadafi and Lowery took the trip at a time when Qadafi was openly calling for attacks on America. Lowery’s junket was courtesy of the Lybian dicator who ordered the bombing of a disco in West Germany where American GIs hung out. An African-American was murdered due to Qadafi’s terrorism. And Lowery did not make a peep of protest. I can’t help but wonder why the NY Times won’t touch the issue of Lowery getting a nice goodybag from Qadafi. And Lowery’s comments about Israel and essentially about American Jews are vile. He is like Reverend Wright, albeit with a braver personal life story. But Lowery needs to be exposed for what he is."  But of course,  he is ONLY giving the benediction, so no need for the rabid right to get all bent out of shape about it.  Still, the left hollers about Warren and his biblical stance against homosexual marriage, probably the only  truly biblical stance the man has, but it's a start.

I would say that America has made a huge, huge mistake, but I think Obama would have gotten in even if every voter had voted for Santa Claus on a write in.  We are in big trouble, folks. 

...Barney Frank, who helped orchestrate the whole Fannie/Freddie fiasco, and later denied there was any problem (saying the agencies were were doing a splendid job) is now denying any responsibility.  Now he's saying the republicans caused it because it exploded on Bush's watch.  And now Frank is screaming for government oversight of banks who made *risky loans*  which dem-sponsored policies forced them to make.  It is so machiavelian!  You have to give them points for turning this whole thing to their advantage.  Now under the guise of fixing Bush's mess, they can slip in the whole laundry list of social policy changes they've been panting after for decades.  I am in awe. 

I remember some talk before the elections that younger voters only get their "news" from Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show."  I never agreed with that assessment because in order to "get" Stewart's sometimes subtle comedy, one had to know the real story in advance.

This is the first time I recall watching the "Daily Show" where I didn't laugh very much.  It seems that this IS the one time that Stewart actually did report some pretty important news that no other "mainstream" media source was able to do.

To me, this was probably the most important news story to cover (or try to understand) what happened to the economy.

It's a shame that it took a comedy show to do it!

(The link to the Hannity & Colmes interview referred to is http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/FetzerHannityColmes200606222.wmv).  I would definitely recommend watching this. 

There are a lot of *coincidences* here, it would seem. 

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when Hannity & Colmes (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen attack theme (they got their facts FOXED, as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer.

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over their airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker... The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly exposed to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM elite.

A Final Thought I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]
Source:  http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=284742411#Post294752412

what a gift to our country at this tumultous time.

You have made some very anti-semetic remarks about the Israeli's, and now you are being called on the carpet about it.  You've documented several times with your supporting remarks of the Muslim protestors in Washington (which I've failed to find any reference to besides your obscure article link) that you think Israel and the U.S. are mean murderous tyrannically-governed countries.  If you are going to take a side take a side, but your attempt to suddenly appear tolerant in the presence of a Jewish person is VERY disingenous, and I for one don't by it for a second.  Pick a side and stick to it.  If you don't support Israel then stand by your assertions.  If you do support Israel then you need to make yourself a little clearer, because all I see you doing is siding with Hezbollah.