Re: A Taste of Terrorism – Crudely Bitter

by **Stephanie** Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:53 pm

I think god wants me to win the Powerball jackpot tonight.

by Aaron Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:10 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:Why do you believe God wanted GWB to be President?

Well, you got me there.

Because, would you believe, GW Bush said so?

The God I know doesn't do bad things. He may allow them to happen for his reason but he doesn't do them. Maybe he allowed GWB to become President simply to test you Ziggy!!!

by ziggy Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:37 pm

Aaron wrote:The God I know doesn't do bad things. He may allow them to happen for his reason but he doesn't do them. Maybe he allowed GWB to become President simply to test you Ziggy!!!

We each have our own God(s). The God you or I know is not particulary relevant here. This is about the God GW Bush knows.

by ziggy Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:39 pm

Stephanie wrote:I think god wants me to win the Powerball jackpot tonight.

Yeah, mine too. So we might have to share that jackpot.

by Aaron Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:41 pm

ziggy wrote:We each have our own God(s). The God you or I know is not particulary relevant here. This is about the God GW Bush knows.

But you believe that God.

Whatever floats your boat dude.

by Aaron Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:42 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Like TRC says, maybe you need to venture out more.

There was a weigh crew at the junction of Rt. 2 and 62 near Millwood a couple days ago. And at the junction of Rt. 2 and 68 at Ravenswood a few days before that. But when a trucker sees a weigh crew, he CBs that info. to other truckers, and the overweight guys park until the weigh crew is gone.

So the question remainss- why do truck drivers not obey the weight laws unless a weigh crew is in sight?

That, too, iis a part of the atmosphere of lawlessness I spoke of yesterday.

I drove a truck for 10 years and have managed trucks for the last 10. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I know how the system works and I know how drivers are getting around it. But the bottom line is, if the DOT would do their job, drivers wouldn't get around the system.

Those DOT crews at Rt 2 and 62 one day and at 2 and 68 a few days later operate PORTABLE scales out of the trunk of their cars. They shouldn't be setting up in one location, they shoud be mobile, which is why they're issued PORTABLE scales to begin with.

If they set up at Rt 2 and 62 and hit 4 or 5 trucks and then move, maybe out on Rt. 33 or up 68 or down on Rt. 2 and keep moving, then truckers can't get on CB's and warn others. And if they do it long enough and get rid of their lazy state employee image, they might actually start getting something besides widening their asses done.

The answer to you question is, truckers know the DOT is useless, isn't going to do much, is easy to get around and they can get away with it. They know this because the DOT is useless, isn't going to do much, is easy to get around and ALLOW truckers to get away with everything under the sun.

The only thing that will change that simple fact is for the DOT to change it.

Any more questions I can answer for you?

And for the record, I get out plenty but thanks for you concern.

In' not the least bit suprised that you abandoned that subject as quickly as you did. I don't blame you. Very Happy

by **Stephanie** Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:53 pm

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:I think god wants me to win the Powerball jackpot tonight.

Yeah, mine too. So we might have to share that jackpot.

Share and show you care, my friend.

btw.......Aaron thinks he's god. The fact he isn't is something we can be thankful for Smile

by ziggy Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:03 pm

Aaron wrote:
Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Like TRC says, maybe you need to venture out more.

There was a weigh crew at the junction of Rt. 2 and 62 near Millwood a couple days ago. And at the junction of Rt. 2 and 68 at Ravenswood a few days before that. But when a trucker sees a weigh crew, he CBs that info. to other truckers, and the overweight guys park until the weigh crew is gone.

So the question remainss- why do truck drivers not obey the weight laws unless a weigh crew is in sight?

That, too, iis a part of the atmosphere of lawlessness I spoke of yesterday.

I drove a truck for 10 years and have managed trucks for the last 10. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I know how the system works and I know how drivers are getting around it. But the bottom line is, if the DOT would do their job, drivers wouldn't get around the system.

Those DOT crews at Rt 2 and 62 one day and at 2 and 68 a few days later operate PORTABLE scales out of the trunk of their cars. They shouldn't be setting up in one location, they shoud be mobile, which is why they're issued PORTABLE scales to begin with.

If they set up at Rt 2 and 62 and hit 4 or 5 trucks and then move, maybe out on Rt. 33 or up 68 or down on Rt. 2 and keep moving, then truckers can't get on CB's and warn others. And if they do it long enough and get rid of their lazy state employee image, they might actually start getting something besides widening their asses done.

The answer to you question is, truckers know the DOT is useless, isn't going to do much, is easy to get around and they can get away with it. They know this because the DOT is useless, isn't going to do much, is easy to get around and ALLOW truckers to get away with everything under the sun.

The only thing that will change that simple fact is for the DOT to change it.

Any more questions I can answer for you?

And for the record, I get out plenty but thanks for you concern.

In' not the least bit suprised that you abandoned that subject as quickly as you did. I don't blame you.

There wasn't much left to argue when you said:

The company I work for is a good employer, a good neighbor and we abide by the law. I know you don't believe a multi billion dollar corporation is capable of that but it's true.

Besides, I'm smart enough to know that in the long run, any money I would save on shipping cost would be offset by maintenance, brake, tire and fuel cost. This ain't my first rodeo dude.

That tells us that you agree that the companies the outlaw drivers work for are not good employers, not good neighbors, and they don't abide by the law, that they aren't smart enough to know that any money they save on heavier loads would be offset by maintenance, brake, tire and fuel cost, and that this is their first rodeo. That's not much different from what I have been saying. We agree, again.

by Aaron Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:54 pm

Stephanie wrote:
btw.......Aaron thinks he's god. The fact he isn't is something we can be thankful for

No, unlike some, I know my shit stinks. I'm glad you care though, thanks. Very Happy

by **SheikBen** Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:39 pm

Hey Steph and Ziggy,

Can you think of one event (obviously hypothetical) or one piece of evidence that, should you see it, would lead you to the conviction that Jesus Christ is uniquely God in the flesh?

Convesely, could you think of one event/occurrence or one piece of evidence that would lead you to believe that there was only one transcendent God, if you saw it?

What I am very curious about right now is if any evidence would be possible to convince you of a transcendant God not dependent on one's own preferences. This is really a curiosity--I have no where to "go with it."

by ziggy Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:06 pm

SheikBen wrote:Hey Steph and Ziggy,

Can you think of one event (obviously hypothetical) or one piece of evidence that, should you see it, would lead you to the conviction that Jesus Christ is uniquely God in the flesh?"

Uniquely? No. We are all God's children- or "God in the flesh", if you prefer.

Convesely, could you think of one event/occurrence or one piece of evidence that would lead you to believe that there was only one transcendent God, if you saw it?

Transcendent? No. The work of God is the work of nature. There are many things in the natural world that I don't understand. That does not mean that they are transcendental- only that I am ignorant of many things and have more to learn.

What I am very curious about right now is if any evidence would be possible to convince you of a transcendant God not dependent on one's own preferences.

Not dependent on "one's own preferences"? No.

This is really a curiosity--I have no where to "go with it".

There is noting wrong with curiosity- even if just for curiosity's sake.

by **Stephanie** Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:11 pm

Michael,

I think it's possible there is only one "transcendent God". I just don't think it's very likely. I think there is an extremely remote possibility the "Holy Trinity" is real, and that Christ was/is God in the flesh.

I don't see anything that could ever occur to make me believe these things while I'm still alive. I don't pretend to have the "answers". I just don't concern myself too much with the questions. I doubt that makes a whole lot of sense to you.

I figure there is a fair chance there is "something" after death. I think anything is possible. What I think is most likely is that whether or not there is one God or a thousand of them or none, the existance of a creator or creators has no impact on my life (or anyone else's) and our actions in this life will have little to no impact on what comes next, if anything.

I probably didn't explain that very well, but it's how I feel and what I "believe".

by **SheikBen** Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:32 am

Thanks! My curiosity has been sated!

by SamCogar Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:49 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:Why do you believe God wanted GWB to be President?

Well, you got me there.

Because, would you believe, GW Bush said so?

HA, now Ziggy has blamed Aaron for his "round n' round he goes" game.

Zigster "switched" the topic in every one of his succeeding post in an attempt to CHA from having to explain and defend his actions of the previous post.

Aaron, you will have greater success at "nailing Jello to the wall" ........ than at trying to get Zigster to "stay on topic".

.

by Aaron Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:37 am

SamCogar wrote:Aaron, you will have greater success at "nailing Jello to the wall" ........ than at trying to get Zigster to "stay on topic".

.

I know Sam. That's why, when he switches topics, I'll go right along with him telling him how wrong he is on his new post.

by ziggy Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:34 am

Aaron wrote:
SamCogar wrote:Aaron, you will have greater success at "nailing Jello to the wall" ........ than at trying to get Zigster to "stay on topic".

.

I know Sam. That's why, when he switches topics, I'll go right along with him telling him how wrong he is on his new post.

Yeah, we'd noticed- that Aaron is always right and that Zig is always wrong.

by Aaron Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:11 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:
SamCogar wrote:Aaron, you will have greater success at "nailing Jello to the wall" ........ than at trying to get Zigster to "stay on topic".

.

I know Sam. That's why, when he switches topics, I'll go right along with him telling him how wrong he is on his new post.

Yeah, we'd noticed- that Aaron is always right and that Zig is always wrong.

That's not true. On the things I agree with you, such as we never should have went into Iraq, I don't argue. I don't see the point. But you can't accept that I agree with you on that point. You feel the need to continue to insist that going is MUST be admitted to as a mistake by both GWB and Cheney before you will even think about discussing what to do now.

I fail to see the point of that logic. We're there, nothing's changing that (not even a new President) so in my book we need to figure what the best thing to do from this piont forward is and get to doing something.

You won't even acknowledge if you believe we should just march out or what we need to do and when questioned you beat that same 'Bush/Cheney must admit they are wrong' dead horse and refuse to move past you're hatred for GWB.

I don't see the point.

by ziggy Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:29 am

Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

by **Stephanie** Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:45 am

ziggy wrote:Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

Ziggy,

Does that mean if Obama is elected he shouldn't have to come up with an exit plan? I still favor marching US troops out and providing relief agencies with money and supplies to help Iraqi civilians. If we wait for peace or stability we will be there for a hundred years.

by ziggy Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:52 am

Stephanie wrote:
ziggy wrote:Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

Ziggy,

Does that mean if Obama is elected he shouldn't have to come up with an exit plan?

Does Obama think that we should be there, or that we should not be there? He has not made that clear at all. Obama is a candidate for POTUS; I am not. So yes, it is more incumbent on Obama than on Ziggy to tell us what he really thinks and wants to do re: Iraq- but which he hasn't done- with any consistency.

Like Hillary Clinton, Obama is trying to please all sides at once.

by Aaron Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:00 am

ziggy wrote:Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

So then there's no need for you to discuss Iraq in the future.

by **Stephanie** Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:05 am

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
ziggy wrote:Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

Ziggy,

Does that mean if Obama is elected he shouldn't have to come up with an exit plan?

Does Obama think that we should be there, or that we should not be there? He has not made that clear at all. Obama is a candidate for POTUS; I am not. So yes, it is more incumbent on Obama than on Ziggy to tell us what he really thinks and wants to do re: Iraq- but which he hasn't done- with any consistency.

Like Hillary Clinton, Obama is trying to please all sides at once.

Oh man..........look, why discuss it at all then? We agree we shouldn't have gone in. I give you kudo's for not falling for the pile of crap I did. However we are there now, and we need to get out. So if you don't favor marching out, you must have some idea of what you think should be done or what you'd like to see happen.

Just saying Bush is the Devil and Cheney is the anti-Christ doesn't help anything. They are bad leaders, perhaps even bad men. So what should Congress and their successors do now?

by ziggy Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:39 am

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:Why should I come up with the solution about how to get out of Iraq? I was opposed to going in there in the first place. The people who did or do support being there should come up with the "exit plan"- or else declare that they want us to be there virtually forever, like McCain has.

So then there's no need for you to discuss Iraq in the future.

And so there's no need to discuss the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections in the future, eh? But that's where you jump to when I point out how lousy Bush and Cheney are- to Gore and Clinton, whom I didn't vote for anyway.

I will talk about Iraq if and when I damn well please. If you don't like what I say, you can ignore it, argue with it, or whatever.

Unless I am mistaken, Bush is scheduled to talk about Iraq some time today. Maybe, in all your wisdom, you should tell him that there's no need to discuss Iraq in the future.

by Aaron Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:52 am

ziggy wrote:And so there's no need to discuss the 1992, 1996 and 2000 elections in the future, eh? But that's where you jump to when I point out how lousy Bush and Cheney are- to Gore and Clinton, whom I didn't vote for anyway.

I will talk about Iraq if and when I damn well please. If you don't like what I say, you can ignore it, argue with it, or whatever.

Unless I am mistaken, Bush is scheduled to talk about Iraq some time today. Maybe, in all your wisdom, you should tell him that there's no need to discuss Iraq in the future.

What you should do is save your tripe so you can copy and paste it. That'll save you some time in the future because you ain't said anything new in the past year and a half.

And who goes to the 92?

by ziggy Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:01 pm

Stephanie wrote:Oh man..........look, why discuss it at all then? We agree we shouldn't have gone in. I give you kudo's for not falling for the pile of crap I did. However we are there now, and we need to get out. So if you don't favor marching out, you must have some idea of what you think should be done or what you'd like to see happen.

Just saying Bush is the Devil and Cheney is the anti-Christ doesn't help anything.

Five years ago when some of us were telling the world that it was all so wrong- that it was a sham, built on lies and unsubstianted hype- we were branded as the equilavent of the Devil and the anti-Christ- by some of the people on this very forum today. So as long as the likes of SamCogar and George Bush tell us how good the Iraq war has been, in spite of the obvious failure of this war to do what was presented as the objective- because the stated objective was bogus to start with- then I'm gonna keep reminding them that we told you so. It's Vietnam almost all over again- and we told you so then, too.

Same old same old.

What to do now? Either get out and admit to the many mendacities of it, or go to Congress for a declaration of war- forcing a debate of record about the what, the why, the objectives. The status quo is not built on anything but one set of lies and one blunder after another for the past 5-6 years or so. Continuing to perpetuate the fraud of the 5 year and counting Iraq war, without those responsible at the highest levels admitting the bogusness and the frailure of it all, constitutes only more fraud against America and the whole world.

by Sponsored content