TERRORISTS PRAYER
Dear God, please grant me the strength to strap this bomb to my chest kill the innocent children. And when I do, please allow me to enter into your Kingdom of Heaven for eternity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
I guess that's what the ACLU thinks is happening when a Christian prays.
Hate the ACLU? Want them gone? Head over to Stop The ACLU. Credit for this link goes to Greta
Thanks John.
The Only Thing Necessary For Evil To Triumph
Is For Good Men To Do Nothing
Categories:
ACLU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
That's because they're a terrorists group. Any Liberal group is a terrorist group.
I wouldn't go that far Chris, but certainly many far left extremist groups could be described that way. Many of them certainly are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Oh no, Jake and I have this kind of back and forth friendship. The ACLU isn't a terrorist group, but like you said, they do provide comfort to them.
Any Liberal group is a terrorist group.
The founding fathers were terrorists? Wow - that puts a whole new perspective on American history.
the founding fathers were not liberals. they were revolutionaries and patriots. the founding fathers changed things for the better and created something incredibly brilliant and positive. liberalism is at its heart regressive and miserable, hence the failure and darkness of communism.
Mr Unknown once again proves that he's an ignorant fool.
Liberal, n.:
1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Yeah - liberalism is "regressive" and "against people's rights". That's why libertarianism is a submovement of liberalism.
you can quote the dictionary all you want. it doesnt change the fact that the current liberal fringe is not at all progressive, it is socialist. socialism is nothing but regression. at one time long ago liberalism was a vehicle for positive change. not today. today's liberal wants to punish success, destroy incentive to achieve, and create huge gov't to control our lives. yeah thats civil liberty right there. libertarians, t least the smart ones, are absolutely different from liberals. they have been called "dope smoking Republicans" by those on the left and the Democrats in our country. thye believe in unfettered capitalism and small gov't, much like most Conservatives. They believe it is gov't job to protect the nation and create an environment for success, and then get out of the way. liberals want socialism, huge gov't, high taxes, and big spending. liberalism has fallen far from its traditional definition and many have become the greatest bigots i have ever known.
And now you've just counteracted your previous statements. Way to go for doublethinkers.
I supposed you believe that giving massive tax cuts to the rich minority, and next to none to everyone else is progressive? Making it easier for the rich to get ridiculously rich, while keeping everyone else where they are is obviously such a good strategy.
It's no easier now than it was before Bush for the middle and lower classes to advance - but it's a hell of a lot easier for the upper class to keep expanding. I guess it doesn't disturb you at all that the average CEO makes 531 times what the average worker does, while in Britain it's only 14 times what the average worker makes?
Za, aren't you the one that's always going on about how Communist countries today aren't practicing true Communism? Well, couldn't it just be that Liberals today don't practice real Liberalism? The Liberal today isn't the same Liberal we had in the early 60's with JFK.
when will za get some new diatribes? it is always the same i hate america, the rich are evil bs.
i am not rich and my taxes are low. how poor are you that you would consider me wealthy? do you ignore the fact that unemployment is way down and federal revenue is at record levels because of the tax cuts. low taxes means stronger economy, more jobs, and as a result more revenue. People work harder when they know they will be allowed to keep their own money instead of having it confiscated by the gov't.
Chris, if that were true, then you shouldn't call them Liberals.
If it were also true, you'd actually be able to argue against their policies, instead of having to resort to using defamation.
Mr Unknown - job losses have only stopped increasing this year. Bush has had a record number of bankruptcies filed while he was in office. Federal revenue is at a record low because of tax cuts. Even his old Secretary of Treasury - Paul O'Neil said his tax cuts were crap, that the money could have been better spent, and that the cuts were only an attempt to get a political advantage, and would have very little effect on the economy. Funnily enough Bush fired him.
once again try thinking for yourself instead of going to the liberal underground to tell you what to think. go to the source. the raw economic data doesnt lie. you are seeing things through your "i hate bush" filter. i am no fan of this pres. or congress, but the economy is doing remarkably well despite the factors working against it.
Yes, the economy is doing remarkably well, as of this year.
And it has jack all to do with Bush's tax cuts.
Yes, tax cuts promote growth - but not when most of them are given to the upper 10%. The economy is boosted far more when the majority of tax cuts go to the majority of consumers. Tell me - how did repealing the Death Tax help the economy? Given that it only applies to estates of $1.5 mill or greater and was specifically designed to have no effect on farmers or small business owners, it's hardly helping the average joe. Or getting rid of the dividend tax, which, given the portion of the country which actually holds shares, only serves to give extra cash to the rich. Even multibillionaire Warren Buffet said it was a ridiculously stupid thing to do - which would effectively allow him to only have to pay 3% tax from his actual income, meanwhile any of his random employees would still be paying roughly 30% tax from their income.
And according to the Congressional Budget Office the cost of Bush's tax cuts (in lost revenue) is almost 3 times what the war on terror cost, including the increased spending on homeland security and the rebuilding after 9/11.
Spending also almost doubled under Bush from what it was under Clinton.
You blame a slump in the economy for the job losses and record number of bankruptcies filed under Bush, yes? I blame an economic rise which has nothing to do with Bush for this year's increase. As I said - even his old Secretary of Treasury said that they were only a political move.
i agree spending is out of control, but congress is just as at fault for that. bush isnt perfect, but the tax cuts did help the economy. bankruptcies are up because of the changie in law that is coming up and people are rushing to file for it before they have to pay back their self-imposed debts.
Bankruptcies spiked in his first term of office! Overall it has nothing to do with that new law, although at the moment the current spike (on top of the Bush spike) is, yes.
of course bankruptcies were up early in the first term. the tech bubble burst and a lot of businesses lost out. the recession that started late in clinton's last term was in effect and 9-11 destroyed the airline industry which had a rippling effect throughout the US economy. the fact that things did not turn out far worse is testament to the bush administration's economic success.
If they turned out worse, someone would have had to have been trying.
The amount of lay-offs and bankruptcies have been compared on numerous occasions to the Great Depression, statistically. It's only because it was localised to the US that it didn't persist.
Post a Comment