Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Selling the people on it Author: Mark7 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 00:54:26 06/26/02 Wed In reply to: JeffF 's message, "Re: Value Line" on 12:21:30 06/25/02 Tue It seems that whenever a Jewish leader talks too much about peace, the Rabbis kill him. It happened with Jesus 2000 years ago, and it happened with Rabin. In fairness, if anybody would talk about peace to our Pharises (Conservative Right, Born Again Rednecks, Pat Robertson & Co), he would be stoned to death also. It goes with fundamentalism, regardless of religion. Clinton may have been a crook, but he was a smart crook and he made a great president, probably one of the most unfairly treated presidents in the US history in the 20th century. Bush is an idiot, a retard, and to make it worse, an arrogant idiot with no life experience, no hardships and no qualifications for the job he holds. I miss the Clinton years, and more and more Americans will miss it also, sooner than they expect. I wish Bush would get a BJ from a 22 year old intern if it would give him half the brains Clinton had... But the retard will bring only ruin to America. He believes the Middle East politics is High Noon, with Bush playing the role of Wyatt Earp shooting up the bad guys. Sharon and Arafat are both the Jewish and Arab immage of the 20th century terrorist. One sending teens to blow themselves up in a bad way for a right cause, the other pretending to be a gentlemen officer, while being a butcher worthy of a Staff Sargent in the SS. Both have an Ace up their sleeve. Sharon has Bush by the balls and is squeezing hard, while Arafat is cheating at the card game... We will see. I doubt there ever will be any Palestinian state. No Jewish leader could survive it. He would be killed by the Rabbis. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Jesus? Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:59:23 06/26/02 Wed Common mistake, Mark, but wrong. I'm obviously not a Christian, but it's clear that Jesus was killed by Romans(Herod, Pilate and others were not Jews, let alone Rabbis). I'm not an admirer or Clinton or Bush. Clinton was a consistent liar. Monica was the least of it. As far as Monica, I would have had more regard for Clinton if he had just told Ken Starr and the nation, "I'm not answering any questions about that. It has nothing to do with whitewater or anything else under investigation and it's none of your business or the countrys". A great president? Clinton had one significant accomplishment - the Family and Medical Leave Act which was long overdue. That's about it. I think it would help if we went back to Presidents with Congressional experience. Both Bush and Clinton were governors. It takes too long to learn that Washington doesn't work like a state. People who already know how Washington works have an advantage. As for a Palestinian State, I think it's inevitalbe in some form. It's not in Israels interest in the long term to keep a lot of captured territory and people. Bush's plan isn't a plan. It just states wishes. While timetables are a bad idea, there need to be steps taken to get negotiations back on track. Of course, the Palestinians also have to be serious about negotiating and the other Arab states have to participate.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Jesus? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 00:09:09 06/27/02 Thu Pilat from Pont wanted to execute Barnabas, the Zealot, because Barnabas was a more immediate threat to Roman authority (which was the only thing Romans cared about together with collecting taxes). It was the priests of the temple who insisted on Jesus' execution, because Jesus interfered with the money changing and the business that was conducted in the temple. Pilat repeatedly "washed his hands" of the blood of Jesus. This reference has been interpreted by most Biblical scholars to mean that the guilt associated with the Jesus execution was to be the responsibility of those asking for the execution (the Priest Temples). It's the same catch 22 any war criminal faces - who is the guilty for the crime? The soldier who kills at order, or the general who gives the order? In case of Sharon, it is the soldier in the Christian militia who kills women and children in a Muslim refugee camp. In case of Arafat, it is Arafat, even when for acts committed while he was cut off and without any security means. But these are all semantics. The Bible can and will be interpreted in any way the reader wants to interpret it. It is a life story so broad, that it offers support for any position, including genocide (all those Moabites and Amonites). I'm just mentioning it, because unlike many other, I did read the Bible from one end to the other, and I also am one of the few who read Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", Lenin's thesis and Keynes theory. I guess that's what guys do at night when they don't get laid. I do agree with you about Clinton's answer to an investigation. Mitterand of France told reporters just what you and I wish Clinton would have told Ken Starr (back off buster!). But Clinton was raised Southern Babtist, which means he has a mixture of guilt for sex plus a belief that sex is the root of all evil. I also agree about Bush not having a plan. Planning is not his strong point. Bush's strong point is to play the role of the Clint Eastwood in foreign policy. MOst of our compatriots imagine that foreign policy is conducted in the manner in wich Eastwood deals with "punks" in Dirty Harry. Problem is, Punks like Sharon are stronger than Bush, and Punks like Osama and Arafat prove to be smarter than Bush (not trying to say that Arafat or Osama are smart). So the conclusion is we, the American People lose.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Smarts Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:41:26 06/27/02 Thu Arafat is smart in a certain way. He knows how to survive. It's amazing how many times he's been able to do that -survive and stay in power. You say that an Israeli leader who makes peace is most likely to be assasinated by his own side. That may be true, but Arafat too is always most in danger from his own side - from those like Hamas, or Islamic Jihad or states like Iraq, who don't think he should be talking at all. The problem is when your main goal is survival, you can't show brave leadership. As for Clinton, the Rhodes Scholar, he is intelligent in a way, but with no sense, and few principles. Monica bothers me far less than Hilary's secret Healthcare task force, filegate, the unecessary deaths at Waco and a number of other more important scandals. I think the basic problem is that Arkansas, good old buddy system of politics that it was was used to corruption and people looking the other way. Again, I say a lack of Washington experience hurt Clinton. He thought it would work the way it worked when you were Governor and it doesn't. As for Bush, what's annoying is his indifference to what he doesn't know. To be a good President, you have to be willing to study the world and the issues involved and the same goes for domestic issues. There are too many times when the President lets his advisors tell him what to think about an issue. I have no idea whether I would vote for him for reelection, until I see what the other choice will be.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Jesus? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:38:34 06/27/02 Thu I repeat. I think the problem with peacemaker being killed by their own is not a Jewish problem. It is a religious fundamentalist problem. Pacifists were killed in cold blood in the US in the 60s by people claiming to be "Christians". Fundamentalists of all religions, Born Agains, Muslims and Jewish are all more likely to kill peacemakers among their ranks in the name of God. As for George W. Bush, there is one thing far more dangerous than his stupidity in combination with his arrogance. The worst thing about George W. Bush is that he truly hates democracy and all things democratic. He was elected by a minority proclaimed King George 2nd by the Supreme Court (last time a George 2 rulled America we had the Boston tea party). Most of his acts as president have to do with distroying equal protection under the law. He is trying to establish state religion (this idiotic mixture of bad Judaism and fake Christianity called Evangelism that is neither old testament nor New testament). He tries now to establish this KGB style security system called the "HOmeland" security with powers to intrude into anybody's life and distroy it at the ruler command. The Homeland security office will add no security, but will bring back the 50s wich hunts for reds. Only international justice for the common man can add justice in the present world. Bush had a historic opportunity to define the terrorist from the freedom fighter. But he refused. He prefered to take the coward's choice - He declared all his personal undesirables as terrorists, thus placing all Americans in danger and alienating most of the civilized world. To this day, Bush will not have the courage to give us an objective definition of who is a terrorist, a definition that would describe the terrorist in uniform as well as the one without a uniform. We don't know how the Kosovo liberation Army is different than the Palestinian Liberation Army, or how the Chechen and Kashmir resistance is different than the Palestinian resistance or the Colombian leftist guerrilla. We don't know why we aid the Columbian right wing paramilitaries in terrorising peasants, and we stumble on the Russian military campain in Chechnia or the Kashmir conflict depending on the daily CIA confusion of the day. G.W.Bush has a born disdain for democracy, a deep hate and disdain for democratic values that is shared by all those born in priviledge. He will alter America forever in favor of America's worst instincts: Greed, Racism and Religious Intolerance. The administration Bush presides over is the imbodiment of these three bad American instincts (look at Cheney & Co). Give the bastard and his Christian Coalition friends a second term and he'll Talibanize America in a Born Again Jimmy Swaggart fashion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Can't tell Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:05:44 06/28/02 Fri Do you like the President? LOL As to whether he will be reelected, that's in large part up to what alternative the Democrats provide. The Boston Tea Party was against George III, not the second. I repeat - a terrorist is somebody who INTENTIONALLY attacks civilians for political gain. We aid Columbia because our drug was has little common sense to it and this is part of the drug war.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: International Terrorists Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 16:46:03 06/29/02 Sat You are right about George 3. God save us of another George 3. Thank God baby Bush has only daughters and Americans don't elect women to the highest office. I understand your definition for International terrorists. I don't believe this is the official Bush stance on the issue, hoever: Would the Christian militias and their leader, Ariel Sharon terrorists for killing women and children in Sabra and Chatilla? Or the definition of terrorist does not apply to Sharon?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: International Terrorists Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:51:16 06/30/02 Sun There is no doubt in my mind that the massacres in the Lebanon camps were deliberate killings of the civilians there, which makes them terrorist acts, so that Hadad and others who were responsible would by my definiton be terrorists. As for Sharon, if he was involved, than under the definition, it would be a criminal act. I don't think a distinction can be made between ordinary people involved and top ranking people. Nuremberg made that clear, even if they were inconsistent in the actual verdicts. I'm aware of the Belgium indictment against Sharon, but as I've stated here before, I'm also aware that Sharon won his libel case against Time Magazine which had said he was involved. So far, it remians unproven. If it ever does prove to be a fact, I have no problem saying in that case he should be arrested. I'm not going to defend Sabra and Chattilla. It's not defensible. Nor am I going to pretend there have never been Jewish terrorists. That would be silly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: East Germany Case Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:53:13 07/02/02 Tue In 1991 or so, there was a highly publicized case about 4 East German border guards who shot and killed fellow East Germans trying to escape communism by going over the Berlin wall. The border guards were found guilty and charged to some 5 or 6 years of prison, although it was clear they were acting under orders and they were draftees with no choice with respect to their military service. Having been both an East European draftee, and someone who escaped communism in a similar fashion, I found this as one of the greatest travestee of justice. While these men were going to jail for things they were forced in doing at the age of 19 or 20, the bastard Erik Honeker was allowed to flee to Chile (the land of Pinochet!!!!! go figure) and die peacefully. I guess communist dictator and capitalist dictator can get along very well thank you, as long as they murder their opposition. Back to Israel - I see confiscation and demolition of Palestinian homes as an act of terrorism. Also terrorism is to shoot at ambulances who try to help the wonded on a battlefield. The Israeli state seems to be guilty as hell, and Bush hasn't bombed Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. ON the contrary, we gave them more weapons and "unconditional support" so they can do more of the same in the name of the "war on terror". Very hypocritical in my oppinion - but also very fundamentalist conservative worthy of a Bush adminisration.