Thread: Does anyone think different ?

Nittygritty, I looked it up and Janis is from Port Arthur, Texas..not Oklahoma. I posted the link that gives a little background on her earlier. Sorry to have confused anyone about that. Her death was a waste of life as you say. She was a very talented person.

Nittygritty's

I was referring to the part about islamic jihadist

I agree with that 100% Nitty. He's not afraid of radical Islamic terrorists or any terrorists. I feel confident about that.
He's probably not afraid per say of Mexico and illegals, but he may be afraid of making them mad and having them cause trouble in our streets or turn anti-American. Some already are. We know that.

It could snowball into a lot of trouble in our streets. He seems to pander to them and this may be one reason why.

But, pandering to illegal aliens is not the right thing for any president to do if he wants to run a country under the rule of law and order. It's another thing we all know. There will eventually be trouble in the streets just like in France. The real test of George W. Bush will be his reaction to that. Will he give in ? There is a good chance that he might and that is where his weaknesses lie, in my opinion.

Sooner or later it will all catch up to him and to us in the streets of America. It will also catch up to the employers then as well. I don't think he is prepared to deal with that and so he gives in.

Regarding Chavez......I will never support his actions. I think it's important for Americans to understand that we can disagree with President Bush, and still reject what Chavez did 100%, and I do !

BTW, in Venezuela the citizens cannot criticize Chavez. What a hypocritical radical Communist Dictator pig he is. Yet he comes to America, riles people up and encourages total disrespect, criticism and downright hatred towards our president on our sovereign soil. What a loser. Most Americans would have supported seeing him apprehended. A lot of people here are saying that. But this is America....and like people who come into our country illegally, Chavez took total advantage of us, the American people.

It's time for Americans to say "enough" and we're saying it.

Venezuela is the key reason the US has not already been merged with South America under the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. It was Hugo Chavez who protested this agreement and formed a coalition to block it with Brazil, Argentina, Uraguay and Paraguay. Peru also was opposed to it...well...I should say the people of Peru were but the Bush administration threatened to not renew other agreements already in existence unless they ratified FTAA so the outgoing Congress of Peru rushed approval before the new President and a new Peruvian Congress came into power who opposed it.

Chavez did not say the things he said about our President without cause from the South American and Venezuelan perspective.

There is no reason in my mind for any leader attending a function at the UN to feel that they can not say what is on their mind simply because the UN Headquarters happens to be in the United States. If the presence of the UN inside the US intimidates dialogue among the nation's leaders, then it has failed in its primary purpose which is to wage dialogue with words and solutions as a means to avoid war and conflict.

As to the news report from the reporter that Venezuelans are not allowed to criticize their President...that same American reporter in Venezuela interviewed citizens of Venezuela and several of them openly criticized Chavez. Venezuelans are not shy...they have had revolutions, protests, citizens, unions, recalls, referendums and military coup after coup. Venezuelans are very politically active...and always have been. I'm sure their high spirits will continue to prevail. I tried to find some documentation of this report about criticism to find out exactly what the rule or law was but couldn't find anything on the Internet about it.

I understand Americans being fed up with this type of anti-Bush publicity from foreign leaders. But it will continue whether here or there or somewhere. We are fortunate to have heard it ourselves because the meeting was here at the UN because if the UN was somewhere else, we would be completely in the dark and unaware of the sentiment. These nations and there leaders are not anti-American...they are anti-Bush. To me, it's important to know how the world views US and why and be able to hear the speeches live, something not possible when the meetings are held elsewhere.

I've always wondered why we were so hard on Cuba all these many years and I think I got my answer tonight...Castro in 1961 called President Kennedy an "ignorant illiterate millionaire" at a United Nations meeting....so we've isolated and starved the Cuban People for over 40 years, refusing to conduct normal diplomatic relations and trade with Cuba, because he insulted our President.

A little rhyme comes to mind that I learned in grade school..."sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".

That's only partially true. Words do hurt. But they hurt far less than war.

South America has enormous issues which thus far relations with the US have not resolved. They need their own block; their own system; their own ways; of improving the lives of their people.

Venezuela happens to be a perfect example of this. For decades, the US was the biggest foreign player in their economy...and the rich got richer and poverty rose to 70% of the population. Since Chavez and his socialistic programs have come into play, there are improvements. It will take a long time but while his style may suck by our Politically Correct standards, he is committed to this 70% of the Venezuelan population rather than the top 20%. For Venezulans, this means hope by their own means within their own nation. This is the solution we need to seek for countries like Venezuela so that they do not look at Migration to the USA as a solution like Mexico and Central America do...which accomplishes nothing within their own country and only destroys ours.

Chavez is back home in Venezuela; the UN meeting is over; and we have all survived his "incendiary verbal onslaught" against our President.

No Harm, No Foul.

If referees in professional sports can deal weekly with "incendiary verbal onslaughts" up close and personal from professional athletes and coaches twice their size, then I think the American People can handle a couple every 40 years or so from foreign leaders upset with our President and his Foreign Policies.

I'm going to dare to disagree with my super heroine American sister !!

I think that it's far more than because Castro called JFK a name 40 years ago that we have no diplomatic relations with Cuba. Castro allowed Russia to put the missles in Cuba and he is a ruthless Communist leader who has always tried to do harm to us. How about the Mariel Boat Lift where he emptied his prisons of his worst criminals here on us. How about now when he joins with Chavez as the best buddy of the man who joins with the Iranian president would love to see blood running in our streets and just may cause it to happen !! I believe that it is far more than a comment from 40 years ago that causes this separation and inability to have relations with Cuba.

Sure, you could say that when inside the United Nations building a person isn't technically in the U.S. since it's where leaders from all over meet for an international event, which seems more and more like an international circus.

But there is no excuse whatsoever for any leader with any ounce of decency to say such assinine comments as GWB is the devil I can smell the sulfer, when in fact this ruthless SOB was in the U.S. and although an enemy he was being kept safe and secure. Our president could not even travel to Venezuela at this time for any international event because Chavez would assist in anyway he could to see that something bad happened to him.

And yes, since America offers to house the U.N. in America and to host these leaders from other countries we should expect the leaders to come
and to at least conduct themselves in a decent manner.

If some of these leaders cannot stand us and hate the president of the U.S. to the bone and wish with all their heart that they could bring about his demise then I would prefer they not use our airports and highways and hotels to get to the U.N. I vote to move the stupid United Nations circus outside of our country. Because we should not permit leaders who cannot express their disagreements in a better way than that to insult the American people and than turn around and enjoy our country.

He did insult the American people no matter how you look at it. If that was not the case than the majority of Americans, including those who have strong disagreements with GWB would not be saying, "He should have been asked to leave the U.S. or better yet a lot of people are saying we should have apprehended him. Of course they are not serious, because they know we couldn't have done that......but it is their way of expressing how angry and insulted they feel.

Okay, that's about it, Sis !! Regarding the war.....I personally believe that we should be fighing somewhere... with radical Islamic terrorists beheading innocent people with Americans being the top prize for them......but I guess I am just not smart enough to figure our "where" we should be fighting. I'll keep trying though.

Question: WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU HAD HUGO CHAVEZ FOR YOUR PRESIDENT ?

Answer: YOU DEFINITELY WOULDN'T BE CHAVEZ-BASHING BECAUSE IF YOU DID......YOU WOULD FIND OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN GEORGE BUSH AND HUGO CHAVEZ !!

Now, I think you and I should be real glad that we don't live in Venezuela and have Hugo Chavez to contend with. Poor people like us who speak up in Venezuela and somebody knocks on the door at night.....sent special delivery by Hugo Chavez.

At least our president lets us sleep through the night safely without sending any messengers because we criticized him earlier that day.
Right, Sis ?

I guess what it is, American Sister is this. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm wrong but there are actually some things that I actually agree with our president on.

To me, wire tapping to stay ahead of the terrorists is good. Personally, I just do not feel threatened by that. Maybe I should, but I don't.

I want us to do things that will keep us from being hurt or killed.

I also don't mind us treating terrorist prisoners harshly.....major nightmarish torturing...no....I'm not able to support that.....but harsh treatment if necessary to get information I am okay with. The enemy does not wear a uniform and does not play by the rules of the Geneva Convention. If they are beheading people than I want to be mean. We cannot be nice with people like this. So I agree with him there too.

Now the NAU and illegal immigration..........I will have no connection, no support, no respect no nothing to do with him.

But I guess I just believe that I have to make the separation between what I am against and what I support.

I hope that can explain where I am on this.

Now I am prepared for those of you who are going to tear into me like hungry great white shark !!

Go ahead.....I'll be back later to see how much is still left of me !!

Dear American Sister, and I respect your opinion and simply respectfully disagree.

The Iranian President never said he wanted to see blood running in our streets. He said specifically on CNN to Anderson Cooper..."We love the American People as our own. We love all peoples of the world." There is no quote from this President of Iran where he has ever said anything suggesting violence or hatred towards the United States, the American People or even President Bush. He doesn't like the Israeili Government and considers them Zionists and oppressive towards the Palestinians.

Chavez in a subsequent interview and I don't remember which reporter it was..said he loves America and the Venezuelan People love America...and in two years when this American President is gone, he looks forward to having good diplomatic relations with the United States.

Chavez has never threatened our President. Chavez has never tried to over-throw him with a coup.

Our President has tried twice to remove Chavez with a coup and someone very close to our President suggested on national television that we should just assassinate Chavez and get it over with.

Our President has tried to strong arm Venezuela and all of South America into the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas...to end our nation and theirs.

So...Chavez has some cause I think to hold some personal hostility which he humourously expressed, without reverance I'll admit, towards our President.

Again today, reporters were in Venezuela interviewing the top 20% as they played on the Caracas Golf Course and then part of the 70% living in terrible poverty about 3 blocks away. For those that wanted to criticize Chavea, they hesitated not one bit or second to do so.

Oh and me too !! I respect your knowledge and opinion so very much. On the rare occasion that I ever disagree with you I always re-evaluate my stand because of the respect I have for you.

I heard on the radio that in the jihad guide (for lack of a better term), which the Iranians use that it clearly tells them that it is not only fine but the proper thing to do to lie if necessary to kill the infidels in order to win this war. It instructs them to make agreements and to sign anything binding with the full knowledge that they have no intentions of keeping their word or promise regarding anything. It was chilling to hear this and although I do not know his name, the person giving this information was very credible.

I think we must consider anything and everything coming out of the mouth of this Iranian president with the most extreme caution we have ever taken regarding anyone. I believe that the danger he presents to us is at the high end of the spectrum of extreme danger particularly to Americans, and to others around the world as well.

Regarding Chavez...if he could pull off a coup here in America he would do it, but he knows there is no chance in a million years of doing that. I think the closet thing to a coup he could create here was his deplorable outburst at the U.N. last week.

I also heard another very credible person, he was from Venezuela and he said the people there hate him (as indicated in what you heard the Venezuelans on TV saying) and that a coup to oust him was a strong possibility.

On the domestic front.....with illegal immigration.....whew....I'm out of patience on that. I will do whatever I can, within the law, to get them to change course on that. Yikes.....I'm ready to start saving tomatoes so that they will get nice and rotten.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by hope2006

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

]
Sorry, I was unclear. Blavatsky prophesied the coming of a new age messiah. She fairly clearly identified Hitler, and her Theosophist devotees such as Steiner specifically identified Hitler as Blavatsky's anticipated messiah.

Hmm....
Why are we going after Blavatsky - her teaching after all is the combination of Hindu-Tibetan-philosophy plus her ability to tap into the "Akashic records " according to her - so the messages she got are full of bias , can be interpreted in many ways and contradicting in many ways .
I would go with Edgar Cayce , Manly Palmer Hall as well as analizing the wealth of knowledge taken from Easten philosophies / Chinese , Buddhism , Taoism etc /
Even if you take Mistic Christianity / esoteric form of the teaching - like Sufism in Islam and Kabbala in Judaism /
you will appreciate that all the teachings are basically about spirit - energy - and dualism - good-bad , positive -negative and their interaction
This is the idea of the Anti-Christ - the negative energy and spirit - one part of the whole
It does not have to be looked as a totally negative experience , but the challenge for the society which is going through the stagnation period - like an abscess on the unclean person's body
This is one more challenge of working on ourselves and growing , choosing consciously the positive-good energy-spirit
I do not consider Blavatsky as my guide in any way - but rather as one of the developed people , who have the glimpses of the knowledge and deserve consideration even if there are multiple contradictions in their teachings
I think philosophy should be learned and debated as a way of a healthy upbringing - it helps us to establish the relationship with the universe , others and ourselves - this is one of the things our society is lacking and hence - the outcome - you can just turn on TV - no more words needed

Legal I have to agree, all too often when a president does something that the majority disagree with, we tend to demonize him.

Now take Clinton for starts. Easy to demonize a man who thought having a little adultery in the Oval Office was ok so long as no one found out. Personally if I were Hillary I would have had him paying through the nose for that heavy marital insult. But I am not Hillary (thank the Lord!!!).

I think Bush has done good, not perfect, but he is human and heaven forbid prone to errors in judgement from time to time. However on immigration, I am angry as h*** at him and want him to listen to his fellow citizens instead of foreigners.

As for Chavez, I have no doubts that he will, if he already has not, aligned himself with Islamic extremists to gain, and to find a way to destroy America so he could be the big boy on the block. He is both a jerk face and a backstabbing jerk face, not to be trusted as far as we could get past his big South American lips!

Originally Posted by hope2006

Hmm....
Why are we going after Blavatsky - her teaching after all is the combination of Hindu-Tibetan-philosophy plus her ability to tap into the "Akashic records " according to her - so the messages she got are full of bias , can be interpreted in many ways and contradicting in many ways .
I would go with Edgar Cayce , Manly Palmer Hall as well as analizing the wealth of knowledge taken from Easten philosophies / Chinese , Buddhism , Taoism etc /
Even if you take Mistic Christianity / esoteric form of the teaching - like Sufism in Islam and Kabbala in Judaism /
you will appreciate that all the teachings are basically about spirit - energy - and dualism - good-bad , positive -negative and their interaction
This is the idea of the Anti-Christ - the negative energy and spirit - one part of the whole
It does not have to be looked as a totally negative experience , but the challenge for the society which is going through the stagnation period - like an abscess on the unclean person's body
This is one more challenge of working on ourselves and growing , choosing consciously the positive-good energy-spirit
I do not consider Blavatsky as my guide in any way - but rather as one of the developed people , who have the glimpses of the knowledge and deserve consideration even if there are multiple contradictions in their teachings
I think philosophy should be learned and debated as a way of a healthy upbringing - it helps us to establish the relationship with the universe , others and ourselves - this is one of the things our society is lacking and hence - the outcome - you can just turn on TV - no more words needed

That may be your idea of antiChrist, and it may even be the idea espoused by antiChristian New Age types, but it has nothing to do with the original concept of antiChrist espoused by John in the Holy Bible, and that is, after all, the sole original source of the concept of antiChrist. John makes clear that his idea of who and what Christ is accords more with mainstream Christianity than with the various and sundry manmade religions that have cropped up over the last hundred years or so. For example, the Mormons may invoke the name of Christ until they're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that their fairytale religion has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity.

Just so we're clear, John consistently expressed a view of Christ that included the idea that he was the Word of God incarnate, that he was the sole source of salvation, and that antiChrist was an evil that led men to eternal death:

1 John 2:22-26
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
KJV

and then:

2 John 7-11
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
KJV

I understand that ecumenism that embraces every philosophy regardless of source and that claims that there is merit in all faiths gains traction daily, but I also understand that there is but one truth. Combining all the untruths in the world does not somehow magically convert error into truth. If there is indeed a Creator God, and I believe that there is, then surely He has the power to leave a clear record of His will somewhere. For those who claim that the record is some mystical device attainable only through trance states, I ask why God would not simply leave a clear record that all can see? I also ask why those whose philosophy and theology clearly do not accord with the Bible are so intent on trying to conjure ways for their odd meanderings to square with the Bible? If you do not believe the Bible, fine; have to courage to say that it is bunk. That is far less offensive than trying to twist the clear verbiage of scripture to conform to some mystical faith of recent vintage. And if you do not agree with the recorded words of Christ which are carried down to us in the Bible, fine; repudiate Christ. Doing so is far less offensive than making up meanings or teachings never imparted by the Nazarite. It is preferential to the folly of pretending that Christ was a good man, but that he was not the Son of the Father, which means that he was a liar. What good man is a liar and falsely claims the power to grant eternal life? Christ is the Christ of the Bible or else there is no Christ. Those who claim otherwise begin from a logically flawed premise. If there is no Christ then there is no antiChrist.

My personal opinion is that biblical plagiarism is the surest sign of a false religion.