I was just trying to come up with a list of likely Demoractic Presidential Nominees for 2012 basing the selections upon the stances and backgrounds of recent Presidential candidates produced by the party.
1. Usama Bin Laden
Reasons:
Wants us out of Iraq - check
Is sworn to destroy America - check
Hates Israel - check
Blames America for all the world's problems - check
Obviously Usama is the favorite...if he's not their nomineee, I could easily see him leading the party....or at least being their chief speech writer....I mean, he does say the exact same things they do.
And who better to make suicide bombing terrorists like us than Usama? And isn't that really what's it's all about?
2. Rosie O'donnel - It's not easier to find a candidate uglier and more obnoxious than Hilliary..then again, it was next to impossible to find a worse candidate than Bush in 04 and they did just that.
3. Louis Farrakhan - Why nominate Obama when you can have the real deal?
4. Hitler - No not that Hitler you idiots. Dewey Hitler Moore...Stop judging by his name However he is an aryan who was born to Nazi parents, was married by the head of the American Neo Nazis and attends his church regularly frequently listening to sermons about how badly minorities are ing the country up(and whites)...and no, he's not a nazi now because he says he isn't...idiots. And btw, any ethnic or racial minorities that won't vote for this guy are clearly racists.
Thoughts?
Last edited by whottt; 03-22-2008 at 01:15 AM.
Mildly funny
But extremely true. Sadly. I'm sure Pelosi would endorse
him.
No ... Osama isn't pro-abortion, so that would pretty much rule him out for a presidential bid. He might, however, have some hope in Congress.
A good one...
The in bent.
Just because a candidate says garbling Israel's balls in all middle eastern foreign policy might be a mistake, does not mean they hate Israel. That's just what the bas american jews want you to think.
I take it you are against the US supporting Israel. I think even boutons disaggrees with you on this one.
Who ever it is, they will need the approval of liberal radicals and Islamic radicals.
If you believe in the future decoding of "The Bible Code," it doesn't matter anyway. Not only does some experts predict a major earthquake in the Los Angeles area in 2010, but that a comet will strike the Earth in 2012.
There is a controversy over the theory and books, I have the second book published in 2002 and find it rather interesting. The debunkers of the book may or may not be right. They created similar items from word structures, but they are not as elegant as what comes from the Bible, nor are the related words found as closely grouped together.
Any one who believes in divine power probably has the faith to believe it is the work of God.
Don't have the time to go into detail about the Bible code, but count me as one who has grave doubts about the scholarship. In fact, it is probably one of the poorest examples of hermeneutics that I have ever seen. Not only does it not take into account the flexibility in Hebrew spelling, but it operates from the presupposition that the Bible is a codebook full of hidden, secret knowledge that only a select few can decipher and interpret. However, such thinking cuts against the whole motif of the Bible, in which God has revealed himself, not exhaustively but truly, to man. Anybody can go to it and learn truth about God, man, how to be saved, etc. To say that it contains hidden messages is reminiscient of the Gnostic heresy.
Furthermore, I challenge the notion that one can find important "truths" and prophecies by using the Bible code methodology. If I am not mistaken, one can do the same with Moby . If truth and prophecy is what you are looking for, then just give the Bible a straight reading, and forget this code nonsense.
So we send Israel "aid" and we send its Arab "neighbors" aid. Great idea.
Damn perfidious Jews. Did you know they kidnap children and sacrifice the children's blood to their god? Also, they have a secret conspiracy to take over the world. Somebody swiped a copy of their membership manual or something.
There was an Austrian guy once who had a plan to take care of them once and for all, but some Zionist puppets named Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin thwarted him. How sad that was.
I was skeptical until I discovered that the Bible Code names all four Beatles and Pete Best. That is a clear message from God that the Beatles are the greatest!
hahahaha
see
any mention of deviating from full israeli support automatically means I'm a hitler sympathizer...this is such a lame right wing tactic. Because after decades of israeli support, we have sooo much to show for in middle eastern affairs.
You are capable of better, extra stout.
Did the Bible code fortell the coming of Yoko? Or the sellout to Michael Jackson? Will it tell us if the Beatles will ever get on iTunes?
Whott would have his list for potential republican nominees for 2012, but he has to wait on the results of the next Battle Royale of the upcoming WWe Payperview to see who are the strong finalist.
Who gives a about Israel?
I say, let them do whatever they want as long as they do it without us.
As for the Bible Code, that.
I'm more worried about the Mayan Katuns.
However, the Mayan calendar doesn end in the year 2012 with devastation. But, then the calendar resets itself.
Methinks ExtraStout is part of the jewish lobby. In fact, after realizing this, all his other posts fit perfectly into place.
Fascinating.
I think we should back of our support. Israel has done some rather impressive human rights violations over the last decade, and they've caused more problems with the "roadmap" than the Palestinians have.
A world without consequences is a world in chaos.
i just don't get where the part that Palestinians orchestrate the deaths of civilians ever sinks into the minds of anti israeli politicos.
How's the US record on human rights?
He who is free of guilt shall cast the first stone . . . or something like that
Didn't say we had a good record.
But by continuing blind support of Israel, we are complicit in their violations as well as our own. We suffer the consequences of our own violations in places like X-Ray and Abu Ghraib, but then act as a shield for the atrocities that Israel commits.
It's idiotic. Every action has a reaction. Why should we try and shield Israel from the reaction to their actions?
I'd say, comparatively speaking, the U.S. scores rather well on human rights. We have freedom of worship, or not to worship. We have the freedom to criticize the government and society, even with hearsay and half-truths. We have freedom of the press -- they can say pretty much whatever they want.
Shoot ... there are people in the U.S. that want to give terrorists a bill of rights! The Supreme Court found the right to an abortion in the Cons ution in 1973, which I am sure counts as a human right by many. (Of course, you can make the case that it is also a rather egregious human-rights violation). If anything, our human rights are too generous!
So, compared to most of the world, I'd say the U.S. fares pretty well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
