pajarito

Only if you believe that international terrorism isn't a threat to us. After the laundry list of terrorist attacks that have transpired around the globe in recent past. I'm not trying to focus simply on 9-11. That's just the worst in the US to date and what got our attention.

John Kerry was all for it.

I took that oath and have served my part in this conflict. I have friends who are part of the dead and seriously wounded that were mentioned above. Speaking for myself and probably most in the military, I would absolutely do it again. No hesitation. This is a just and necessary cause. My trust was never abused. My Commander-in-chief made the right decision and I hope he can continue to do so.

Colin Powell isn’t the President. Who’s fault is that? Hindsight is always 20/20. The point is, most everyone in the US was onboard with this in the beginning (Dems & Reps). Now, like cowards, those making this an issue are pointing fingers and not supporting the decision that they themselves agreed with. It’s quite pitiful.

And he continued to fuck with UN weapons inspectors for 12 years including kicking them out of the country just to put it into perspective. 1988 wasn't that long ago. Maybe for some here who might have been born in the 90's or something. They never showed that they'd gotten rid of them which was what was required. I think 12 years is plenty of time to comply. I think it's ridiculous that Kerry asserts that we didn't allow the inspectors to do their jobs. We did. Iraq didn't. And we had to be the enforcement power in place of the UN because the UN is a flaccid, ineffective, and corrupt organization.

Oh, he had them and used them. Not that long ago. Saddam Chemical Weapon Use Glance at these pics and re-read your statement above. Edited to add: Sorry...not very organized today. I replied to Rhino but meant to reply to mr2mk1g. My bad.

5' 10'' 165lb

Right. Tunaplanet did the same thing not too long ago. He “googled” up a top 10 list of supposed Genesis contradictions of the internet not really wanting to discuss the context of any of it. I gave detailed explanations for each in this thread. Arguments for (or against) the existence of God If interested, just search for posts made by Tuna and myself. It’s long. Fair warning. You were generalizing with regard to ancient Jewish laws described in the Bible insinuating that the civil laws of ancient Israel might somehow in and of themselves be handed down by God and, therefore, be representative of Christianity as a whole. I was merely clarifying that they do not and there is a difference between the different laws described particularly in the Old Testament. Those seem to draw the most attention from skeptics. Your question above is simply an attempt at misdirection from what we were discussing in your previous post. However, in reference to the commandment “You shall not “kill”, the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." Fighting and killing the enemy in war is not what was described in the commandment as what not to do. There are rules of war, however, which must be followed. You’re probably very smart and have a distinguished educational resume. I just hold a B.S. degree in Management Information Systems from The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) with 8 years work experience in my field and a couple of industry certifications. I’m sure you’re well beyond the undergraduate level. However, without regard to your level of education, your generalizations within this topic of discussion seem elementary and that was what I was referring to. Added: Just in case you’d like to read up on what the Bible has to say about either of these dilemmas you mentioned. I’ve found these useful. War Capital Punishment

I don't know why really...but damn. That was funny!!! I needed that.

Huh?... What the... Oh... Yeah... Uh..huh...

Just a thought concerning translation and the virgin birth. Virgin Birth Jay

I think you're perty smart. Just misguided.

Damn! I used to jump off the top of my house when I was a kid but that was only about half that high. That's crazy! We'll read about that guy someday. He'll be a statistic.

The Bible tells stories whether you believe them or not. It does not explain scientific theory. By the way, how in your opinion does the story not fit the evidence? We in the US allow abortion as legal. That seems in my opinion to go against the moral law “You shall not kill (the original word is closer to murder).” However, that is just a law that we’ve established here in the US. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the view of any other nation. That in no way undermines the Christian moral law (i.e. 10 Commandments) just because we are primarily a Christian nation. In the same way, a law of the Nation of Israel is simply the law of that nation and is not necessarily a commandment from God. This is a very limited and uneducated view.

Faith – The assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. We do this all the time. Blind Faith – Faith without evidence. This would be superstition. The Bible does not call anyone to blind faith. The Bible calls one to faith in its evidence. Like I said before, you may not agree with the evidence but my point is that people do not have to enter into their faith blindly.

You do realize that education in the US is funded primarily on a local, and secondarily on a state level, right? Federal budgeting has virtually no impact on education funds. Shhhhhhhhhh..... That's not what the Democrats want to teach their people. T.M.I.

"Blind Faith" - it's a redundant combination of words. "Faith" is supposed to by blind by definition. That means it exists completely and utterly and totally (I can be redundant) without facts or proof. Isn't that the whole point? I don't agree. Blind faith would be faith in something without any evidence. You may not agree with the evidence that exists because it isn't necessarily scientific but it is historical. Different but still valid. I'm not denying the element of faith but it has foundation. Certainly not blind.

If you read The Bible, it is clear that it was not meant to be a science book. The Bible is primarily a book of history that touches on every aspect of reality. It gives us the big picture. With regards to science, the big picture of the Bible enables us to understand the facts of the present. It’s not meant to tell you how a virgin birth occurred. It just states that it did in fact happen. A better understanding of the laws of the time might clear this up. This has been discussed many times before.

It's just really hard for me to believe that there are people out there still undecided this close to Election Day. I know there are as you've given yourself as an example. It's just bewildering to me. Edited: I'm a jackass. Sorry. I posted too quick and didn't read enough. I retract my last statement as it relates to you personally. It still baffles me in regards to the undecided people, though.

Panic is right. Kerry is already proposing money be set aside for a recount. If that's not damage control, I don't know what is. Crawling deep into the bunker and waiting for the impact.

I think that's part of it. However, I think the primary reason is due to the seriousness of the global situation we're in right now and how that impacts the security of the US. I think people are very concerned with who is capable of leading us through this time. The Presidents backup is key to that security should anything at all happen to the President.

Bitter...very bitter. 4 more years!...4 more years!

I may not agree with you professor but I wouldn't necessarily discount what you say based on a misspelled or misplaced word. Sounds like you're losing the attack on substance and are now going after the small stuff. Again, I understand. It's very frustrating when the person you're pulling for gets his ass handed to him, you watch the whole thing, and can't do anything about it. Don't worry. It's only 4 more years.

I don't look at a stripper and think about how smart she may be or how good her personality is. She may in fact be all those things but, given that she's a stripper, only her physical attributes are accentuated. Those physical attributes are appealing. Don't get me wrong. However, why on earth would you marry one based on the fact that she's a stripper or simply because she's good in bed. There's got to be more to it than that for a life-long relationship. That's not even looking at the morality of the situation. I say no to the question. I liked this quote somebody had on their signature line: I don't care how good looking she is. Somebody, somwhere is sick of her shit!!!

What do you not agree with in Edwards statement concerning Israel? Israel does have an obligation to defend itself against terrorists. As does the US. Do you reach out to the middle east by continually allowing terrorists to kill your people and turning a blind eye? That doesn't sound too responsible to me. A government's 1st responsibility is to the protection of its people and land.