From World War 3 To The Age of Peace (2006-2012)

[NuclearWinter]

RONALD REAGAN - BOUGHT AND PAID FOR


After Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election, you would think there couldn't be two more opposite candidates. Carter was a Liberal Southern Democrat and Reagan, a Hollywood Conservative Republican. Surely, the same people who infiltrated Carter's cabinet would never be able to do the same with 'ol Ronald Reagan, would they?

This doesn't seem to be the case though. Because in 1980, two months before the November election, a party was thrown for Reagan in Middlesburg, Virginia. Reagan sat in the seat of honor, of course, and beside him to his right sat a very important man. Guess who that person was? David Rockefeller, head of the CFR & Trilateral Commission.

Somewhere along the line, Reagan was told that his bid for the Presidency on the Republican ticket would be thwarted unless he chose George Bush as his vice President. So what did Ronald Reagan do? He followed his orders. And he was bombarded with by heaps of money by....guess whom. David Rockefeller.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Ironically, a few months after being inaugurated, Reagan was nearly assassinated by John Hinckley, Jr. And who do you think was VERY close friends with the Hinckley family, even dining with them shortly before the assassination attempt? George Bush Sr. himself!

Coincidence? You decide, especially in light of the fact that Nelson Rockefeller came within a breath of being the President if Ford had been assassinated by Squeaky Fromme.

Although he claimed not to be an "insider", Reagan's cabinet was packed with Council on Foreign Relations members and/or Trilateral Commission members, including his Campaign Manager, CIA director, Chief of Staff, and Secretaries of State, Treasury, Commerce, and Defense.

It appears that the lyrics may have changed, but the music was still the same.

 

[eots]

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent... - Thomas Jefferson

he ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves... - T. Jefferson


..Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.. -- T. Jefferson

oh that crazy tinfoil hat wearing jefferson...to bad prozac was not available in his time like any of this could ever happen

 

[Eightball]

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent... - Thomas Jefferson

he ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves... - T. Jefferson


..Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.. -- T. Jefferson

oh that crazy tinfoil hat wearing jefferson...to bad prozac was not available in his time like any of this could ever happen

Jefferson: Also the infamous author of the Jeffersonian bible..........a bastardization of the bible, or Jefferson's own Holy Cannon of denial.

 

[eots]

thats a bit of a stretch..jefferson did not call it a bible..it was a essay
there are many men of faith ,that have offered various opinions on the bible and personal interpretation

With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus .it was presented as a opinion not as the Gospel

 

[Eightball]

thats a bit of a stretch..jefferson did not call it a bible..it was a essay
there are many men of faith ,that have offered various opinions on the bible and personal interpretation

With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus .it was presented as a opinion not as the Gospel

You are so off.......It was published as the Jeffersonian Bible.......it was not an essay..............just find one, look at it.......and you will see that it is the Cannon, but altered by Mr. Jefferson to meet his deist beliefs.

 

[eots]

The Jefferson Bible
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

About nine years before his death, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) compiled a folio booklet of 83 leaves which he entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English. The booklet, which has come to be known as the Jefferson Bible], expresses the religious principles of the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States.

The original manuscript is in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., but facsimiles were published by Congress in photolithograph copy. Except for two maps of Palestine and Asia Minor, the entire volume is a compilation of four parallel columns of Gospel texts, two to a page, in the four languages mentioned in the title. The texts were not written but were cut out of printed pages of the respective New Testaments and pasted in the booklet. All the evidence points to the winter of 1816-1817 as the date of composition.

The volume contains no writing by Jefferson, except for the table of contents. However, the many references to the collection in his letters indicate that it fairly represents the extent and limitations of his religious beliefs. In a letter to a certain Charles Thompson, Jefferson speaks of this "little book, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. A more beautiful and precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

 

[Eightball]

The Jefferson Bible
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

About nine years before his death, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) compiled a folio booklet of 83 leaves which he entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French, and English. The booklet, which has come to be known as the Jefferson Bible], expresses the religious principles of the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States.

The original manuscript is in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., but facsimiles were published by Congress in photolithograph copy. Except for two maps of Palestine and Asia Minor, the entire volume is a compilation of four parallel columns of Gospel texts, two to a page, in the four languages mentioned in the title. The texts were not written but were cut out of printed pages of the respective New Testaments and pasted in the booklet. All the evidence points to the winter of 1816-1817 as the date of composition.

The volume contains no writing by Jefferson, except for the table of contents. However, the many references to the collection in his letters indicate that it fairly represents the extent and limitations of his religious beliefs. In a letter to a certain Charles Thompson, Jefferson speaks of this "little book, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. A more beautiful and precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Yes, "The life and morals of Jesus" according to Thomas Jefferson, not according to the Cannon or bible account.

Do you understand that Jefferson did a cut and paste, job on the bible, and came up with a Jeffersonian angle that eliminated the parts of the account of the Gospel that would bring conviction to the human soul.

Jefferson was a brilliant man, as so many were back then, and many brilliant one's exist in the world today, but he lacked the "will" to face his own humanity, and his decisions of life before scripture's account.

People make all kinds of excuses in life to avoid biblical scripture's account of mankind, and it's plight without salvation from Christ. Jefferson, though bright, avoided the gospel, but created his own version that allowed him to avoid conviction of his sins, as all mankind is infected.

High I.Q. minus wisdom, is worthless compared to low I.Q. with wisdom used with it.

That's why our world is filled with so many folks that esteem education. They see it as the Nirvana for mankind, yet they lack wisdom which is the ability to use their God given gift of "brightness" in logical, sane ways.

Timothy Leary was of high I.Q. but blew his mind-away on LSD. Where was the wisdom in his life.

Jefferson was a deist...........He altered the bible because it didn't meet his criteria of how "he" wanted God to be.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"......Simple, succinct, yet rejected by both the intelligent and the unintelligent........as the bible crosses the lines of all classes of people. Rich, average, or poor. It(Gods Word) cuts deep like a knife blade right to the inner most part of man's soul. He has two choices; flight, or face it. Most take flight, with excuses, anger, alternatives of their own making, ambivalence, etc... Thomas Jefferson's Essay as you want to refer to it, falls into one of those category's.

The God of the bible even used T.J. in forming this special nation, the United States of America. God takes and uses any and all instruments to fullfill His will. Even the rebellious one's.

 

[eots]

Yes, "The life and morals of Jesus" according to Thomas Jefferson, not according to the Cannon or bible account.

Do you understand that Jefferson did a cut and paste, job on the bible, and came up with a Jeffersonian angle that eliminated the parts of the account of the Gospel that would bring conviction to the human soul.

Jefferson was a brilliant man, as so many were back then, and many brilliant one's exist in the world today, but he lacked the "will" to face his own humanity, and his decisions of life before scripture's account.

People make all kinds of excuses in life to avoid biblical scripture's account of mankind, and it's plight without salvation from Christ. Jefferson, though bright, avoided the gospel, but created his own version that allowed him to avoid conviction of his sins, as all mankind is infected.

High I.Q. minus wisdom, is worthless compared to low I.Q. with wisdom used with it.

That's why our world is filled with so many folks that esteem education. They see it as the Nirvana for mankind, yet they lack wisdom which is the ability to use their God given gift of "brightness" in logical, sane ways.

Timothy Leary was of high I.Q. but blew his mind-away on LSD. Where was the wisdom in his life.

Jefferson was a deist...........He altered the bible because it didn't meet his criteria of how "he" wanted God to be.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"......Simple, succinct, yet rejected by both the intelligent and the unintelligent........as the bible crosses the lines of all classes of people. Rich, average, or poor. It(Gods Word) cuts deep like a knife blade right to the inner most part of man's soul. He has two choices; flight, or face it. Most take flight, with excuses, anger, alternatives of their own making, ambivalence, etc... Thomas Jefferson's Essay as you want to refer to it, falls into one of those category's.

The God of the bible even used T.J. in forming this special nation, the United States of America. God takes and uses any and all instruments to fullfill His will. Even the rebellious one's.

not to mention for some excellent quotes on tyranny as well

 

[SilentKnight]

Yes, "The life and morals of Jesus" according to Thomas Jefferson, not according to the Cannon or bible account.

Who cares? Do you really believe that the so-called canon you speak of was anything more than "The life and morals of Jesus" according to Peter, or Mark, or Luke or Paul? If we are going to rely on something as a source of guidance when it comes to the Bible it shouldn't be you. We need to look at the fact that people like you who lived at the time of Jesus started a false religion in an effort to deceive people and to have them believe that a criminal was in fact God when he was the worst kind of person.

Do you understand that Jefferson did a cut and paste, job on the bible, and came up with a Jeffersonian angle that eliminated the parts of the account of the Gospel that would bring conviction to the human soul.

All the better for him. He took out the parts writtne by liars. I think the gospel authors were bitches and dickheads who wanted to gain power to themselves so they started a religion to benefit them financially and personally. Some had to be executed for their crimes and most importantly Jesus of Nazareth who was a common criminal was executed for his crimes.

Jefferson was a brilliant man, as so many were back then, and many brilliant one's exist in the world today, but he lacked the "will" to face his own humanity, and his decisions of life before scripture's account.

Those who believe the lies in the Bible cannot face their own humanity but must buy into the lie that they can live for eternity and will be resurrected after they die.

People make all kinds of excuses in life to avoid biblical scripture's account of mankind, and it's plight without salvation from Christ. Jefferson, though bright, avoided the gospel, but created his own version that allowed him to avoid conviction of his sins, as all mankind is infected.

Good for him. He wouldn't buy the lies of people like you who lived at the time of Jesus who tried to deify a criminal. These so-called scriptures of yours are the writings and teachings of liars, criminals and those who would oppress. While you appear bright on the surface you have bought into a version of life written by parasites and losers so that they didn't have to face their mortality.

High I.Q. minus wisdom, is worthless compared to low I.Q. with wisdom used with it.

You are right about that. No matter how intelligent you may be you still lack wisdom as did the jackasses who wrote the Bible.

That's why our world is filled with so many folks that esteem education. They see it as the Nirvana for mankind, yet they lack wisdom which is the ability to use their God given gift of "brightness" in logical, sane ways.

You lack wisdom as did those who wrote the Bible, the Quran and the Bhadvad Gita. You cannot use the innate ability that each of us have to realize that your acceptance of the Bible is illogical and based on the teachings of criminals.

Jefferson was a deist...........He altered the bible because it didn't meet his criteria of how "he" wanted God to be.

Good for him because what he basically did was take out the shit written but nutjobs such as yourself. It proves that he is intelligent enough to throw out the garbage.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"......Simple, succinct, yet rejected by both the intelligent and the unintelligent........as the bible crosses the lines of all classes of people. Rich, average, or poor. It(Gods Word) cuts deep like a knife blade right to the inner most part of man's soul. He has two choices; flight, or face it. Most take flight, with excuses, anger, alternatives of their own making, ambivalence, etc... Thomas Jefferson's Essay as you want to refer to it, falls into one of those category's.

As the Bible was written by liars and criminals there is no reason to accept it or its teachings at face value. We must reject it like we reject it authors (aka, you at the time of the life of Jesus). There is nothing of value to the Bible and it would be as valuable if it were written today by the Apostle Eightball. I no more trust those dickheads than I do you.

The God of the bible even used T.J. in forming this special nation, the United States of America. God takes and uses any and all instruments to fullfill His will. Even the rebellious one's.

When you cut through the crap what you mean to say is that you decide what is and isn't rebellious and what God does. Prove to me except by the Book written by asses like you that God is what you claim he is and has done what you claim he has done. What Jefferson did in re-writing the Bible is prove that this is what those who lived at the time of Jesus did. They picked and chose what they wanted in their Bible and then they made up the rest. The Jews and the Romans were right about Jesus being a criminal and he got the punishment he deserved. Now go pray to your God, and if you are lucky he will have you write the Gospel of Eightball.

 

[Eightball]

Who cares? Do you really believe that the so-called canon you speak of was anything more than "The life and morals of Jesus" according to Peter, or Mark, or Luke or Paul? If we are going to rely on something as a source of guidance when it comes to the Bible it shouldn't be you. We need to look at the fact that people like you who lived at the time of Jesus started a false religion in an effort to deceive people and to have them believe that a criminal was in fact God when he was the worst kind of person.



All the better for him. He took out the parts writtne by liars. I think the gospel authors were bitches and dickheads who wanted to gain power to themselves so they started a religion to benefit them financially and personally. Some had to be executed for their crimes and most importantly Jesus of Nazareth who was a common criminal was executed for his crimes.



Those who believe the lies in the Bible cannot face their own humanity but must buy into the lie that they can live for eternity and will be resurrected after they die.



Good for him. He wouldn't buy the lies of people like you who lived at the time of Jesus who tried to deify a criminal. These so-called scriptures of yours are the writings and teachings of liars, criminals and those who would oppress. While you appear bright on the surface you have bought into a version of life written by parasites and losers so that they didn't have to face their mortality.



You are right about that. No matter how intelligent you may be you still lack wisdom as did the jackasses who wrote the Bible.



You lack wisdom as did those who wrote the Bible, the Quran and the Bhadvad Gita. You cannot use the innate ability that each of us have to realize that your acceptance of the Bible is illogical and based on the teachings of criminals.



Good for him because what he basically did was take out the shit written but nutjobs such as yourself. It proves that he is intelligent enough to throw out the garbage.



As the Bible was written by liars and criminals there is no reason to accept it or its teachings at face value. We must reject it like we reject it authors (aka, you at the time of the life of Jesus). There is nothing of value to the Bible and it would be as valuable if it were written today by the Apostle Eightball. I no more trust those dickheads than I do you.



When you cut through the crap what you mean to say is that you decide what is and isn't rebellious and what God does. Prove to me except by the Book written by asses like you that God is what you claim he is and has done what you claim he has done. What Jefferson did in re-writing the Bible is prove that this is what those who lived at the time of Jesus did. They picked and chose what they wanted in their Bible and then they made up the rest. The Jews and the Romans were right about Jesus being a criminal and he got the punishment he deserved. Now go pray to your God, and if you are lucky he will have you write the Gospel of Eightball.

I would have gladly enjoyed having a discussion with you, but I doubt from your post that you would want to.

In fact, we don't even have a starting point, as you have lumped me in the "liar" column.
******
Don't worry, I'm not trying to play the "victim". Just letting you know, that I received your post, and I really don't want to reply to it in anyway than to just say, "I understand you, but don't agree.".
*****
I apologize if I in some way offended you. As the tone of your post is rather angry, or viteol. I surely didn't expect that reaction, as it was just my "take" on Jefferson. Obviously you disagree. In fact my reply to the Eots was not disrespectful.
****
Take it for what it is or isn't to you, I have no quarrel with you.
*****

 

[NuclearWinter]

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - BOUGHT AND PAID FOR


Briefly, here is George H.W. Bush's biography:

In 1948, he graduated from Yale, where he was a member of the Skull & Bones organization. Skull and Bones is probably the most notorious collegiate secret societies in existence and it would also prove to be the breeding ground for the future Council on Foreign Relations members and CIA members. In fact, George Bush would later be on the Council on Foreign Relation's Board of Directors, and he also became a member of the Trilateral Commission.

On November 29, 1963, six days after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, sent a memo to the State Department saying that Texas Special Agent W.T. Forsythe briefed "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" about "problems with the JFK assassination."

Here is a quote from Kris Millegan's article, Everything You Ever Wanted To Know, But Were Afraid To Ask that appeared in ParaScope:

"Many researchers contend that George Bush has been with the CIA since the early 1950's, and that one of his jobs was to consolidate and coordinate the worldwide narcotics industry, the largest industry on Earth. Some say that one of the reasons behind the Vietnam "Police Action" was a cover for the consolidation of the "Golden Triangle"."

 

[NuclearWinter]

From 1967-1970, George Bush was a Texas Congressman who served 2 terms.

From 1971-1973 George Bush was the U.S. Ambassador during the Nixon Administration.

From 1973-1974 George Bush was the National Chairman of the Republican Party.

From 1974-1975 George Bush was the U.S. Liason to China under President Ford, and he was on the Board of directors on the Atlantic Council of the United States.

"Officially", in 1975, George Bush became the CIA director.

And in 1979, right on schedule and according to the plan, George Bush stepped down from both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

The following year, George Bush "announced his plan to make his first run for the Presidency." But what they don't tell you guys in history class, is that it was planned this way all along.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Concerning President Bush's run for the Presidency, David Rockefeller told Sidney Blumenthal of the Washington Post on February 10, 1988, "Even though he has resigned, he hasn't walked away from them."

In fact, on March 19, 1981, less than two months after entering the office of Vice President, Elder Bush spoke before the Trilateral Commission in Washington, D.C.! Also, the next day he was supposed to confer with them again in the White House, but that's the day Reagan was shot.

In 1980, When Bush Sr. ran against Ronald Reagan in the Republican Primaries, he received the highest contributions allowed by law from the following people: David Rockefeller, Edwin Rockefeller, Helen Rockefeller, Laurance Rockefeller, Mary Rockefeller, Godfrey Rockefeller, and a number of other Rockefeller relatives and employees.

 

[NuclearWinter]

In 1981, George Bush was put into office as the Vice President of the United States.

In 1988, George Bush was put into office as President of the U.S. by defeating Michael Dukakis.

In 1989, guess who was listed as a new member in the Council on Foreign Relation's annual report? Michael Dukakis!

All of George H. W. Bush's cabinet members were Council on Foreign Relations members. His Secretary of Defense - Dick Cheney - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. His Secretary of the Treasury - Nicholas Brady - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. His National Security Advisor - Brent Scowcroft - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. His Attorney General - Dick Thornburgh - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. His CIA director - William Webster - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. His Federal Reserve Chairman - Allen Greenspan - was a Council on Foreign Relations member. And his Joint Chief of Staff - Colin Powell - was a Council on Foreign Relations member.

But of course, because if any of those men had not been Council on Foreign Relations members, they would not have been in the White House during George Bush's Presidency.

And that my friends, is due to the simple fact that these organizations run the show. And they put on an act for ALL of us. And so far, up until recently, almost every single American has bought into it.

By the way, did any of those names in George Bush's cabinet sound familiar? They should. Because at one time or another, almost all of them were also a member of our current President (George W Bush's) cabinet as well.

Like father like son eh? Not that good old George W. had a choice though. His father has always told him what to do.

 

[NuclearWinter]

In September, of 1989, Boris Yeltsin journeyed to America and visited two people. Whom was the second person he met with? Answer: George H. W. Bush at the White House. But before even doing that, whom was the FIRST person that Boris Yeltsin met with? Answer: David Rockefeller in New York City at the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters!!!

And if you are wondering who Boris Yelsin was, he was an engineer and minor Communist Party official of the U.S.S.R..

He won the Russian presidency by popular vote in 1989. He opposed the policies of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Yeltsin remained in power, and despite political setbacks, rumors of heavy drinking and at least two heart attacks, he was reelected to office in 1996.

Yeltsin, widely hailed as an effective reformer, soon became dissatisfied with the pace of perestroika, or restructuring. After challenging party conservatives and even Gorbachev himself, Yeltsin resigned from the party leadership in 1987 and from the Politburo in 1988.

Yeltsin's place in history was assured during the August 1991 coup by communist hard-liners. When the coup collapsed after a few days, Gorbachev did return to Moscow -- but the center of power had shifted. On August 23, Yeltsin humiliated Gorbachev in front of the Russian parliament, forcing him to read out documents implicating Gorbachev's own party colleagues in the coup against him.

So......now that you know who Boris Yeltsin is, it would be a good time to ask this question. Why would Boris Yeltsin, who became a leader of the Soviet Union in Russia, wish to meet with David Rockefeller - a banker -, before he would want to meet with the President of the United States at that time - George H. W. Bush?

I'll tell you why. It's because the Rockefellers think they OWN this country. And they pretty much currently do. Thats the sad part. Only are we going to continue to let them have power over us and our nation? Or are we going to stand up, take a charge, and topple this family's power before they get the best of us?

 

[SilentKnight]

I would have gladly enjoyed having a discussion with you, but I doubt from your post that you would want to.

Whether you would have been glad to have a discussion with me is irrelevent. If you want to be a moron and not have a discussion because I speak my mind freely but play your little troll games go right ahead.

I am sure there are many other people who would gladly play your little game where you decide whether they want to have a discussion with you based on their opinion and assessment of the issue and of you. If I were to stop having a discussion with people because they think I am a motherfucking jackass then I would be in a whole hell of a lot of trouble. Now either shut up and go troll someone else or respond to me because you want to respond to me and not because you want to somehow take my response as an opium to deal with your life and with the posts here.

In fact, we don't even have a starting point, as you have lumped me in the "liar" column.

Of course we have a starting point and that is that I think you are a liar and you think I am lumping you in the liar column. If you don't want to start a discussion based upon that premise and use it as a starting point that is your ******* problem.

Don't worry, I'm not trying to play the "victim". Just letting you know, that I received your post, and I really don't want to reply to it in anyway than to just say, "I understand you, but don't agree.".

Why thank you for your consideration but I would have preferred it if you had not let me know that you had received my post and you did reply to it jackass and it wasn't just to say "I understand you, but don't agree" as you made more comments than that. Like I would have cared if you were trying to play the victim. You aren't that important and your passive aggressive need to cut me off from the accusation even before I made it is idiotic especially as I don't even think you are trying to play the victim. In fact, I am more of the opinion that you are the victimizer and not the victim.

I apologize if I in some way offended you. As the tone of your post is rather angry, or viteol. I surely didn't expect that reaction, as it was just my "take" on Jefferson. Obviously you disagree. In fact my reply to the Eots was not disrespectful.

Grow the hell up. Only a loser would ask if he has offended me because of my manner of speaking. As for the rest of what you have said my response is blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah, blah, blah, and blah. I don't give a shit what you expected jackass. Oops, there I go being angry because my disagreeing with you about your being a jackass must mean I am offended or angry.

Take it for what it is or isn't to you, I have no quarrel with you.

Nor do I have a quarrel with you asshole and I don't need your permission to take it for what it is or isn't as I am going to do that anyways

 

[eots]

I bet eightball would kick slientkkknights rude ass in a real fight

 

[Eightball]

I bet eightball would kick slientkkknights rude ass in a real fight

Eots:

Thanks for the encouragement. The before-said poster probably is much younger than me. I'm not too young anymore. I'm young in heart, but I'm one of the baby boomers that was born right after WW2.

I've had my fights in my life, but thank God they were limited to my days as a kid. There's been a few tense times in my adult years, dealing with some folks that were expressing pretty good amounts of road rage at me. Some of those times it was a result of my not paying attention behind the wheel, and some of the times it was not my fault.

I'm not a confrontive sort of person. I try to work things out with talking it out.

I don't have anything against anyone on this forum. I realize that my Christian faith can and will raise some hackles, but this is a forum, and I try to be respectful. Hopefully, I don't talk, down to folks, as that's the last thing I would want to do. I have my strong opinions as other do, plus my Christian faith goes hand-in-hand with my philosophy of life and being.

Eots: Again, thank you for the positive comments towards me. You are what makes this forum a effective and special place, even though you and me probably have a lot of different opinons about things.

I wouldn't mind meeting you and having a glass of wine, a brewsky, or a coke; maybe a hamburger.
*****
My patent saying, on forums and usually is below my signature, but it's something like this. "Don't say anything to anyone anonymously while hiding behind your P.C., that your not willing to say face to face.". In my book it's cowardly to threaten, abuse, and disresepect folks while hiding anonymously in some office cubicle, or in one's home office. Actually it's wrong in my book to do it face to face, but the anonymous root reveals a lot in a person's character.

I didn't serve in Vietnam, but was of draft age, right from the beginning of that draft. I had a college deferment, but I still have the greatest respect for those that served in that war, as well as the subsequent ones up to present. I lost many school friends in "Nam". Many of my friends returned with Purple Hearts. They're not the same persons they were before they went over there. War is a terrible option, but sometimes a necessary option. I don't say it lightly. I have may present friends who are ex-Marines, Army, Navy, and USAF who served in Nam. We have great relationships. Some our church buddies, and some are golfing friends and even neighbors in my San Jose, Calif. neighborhood.
***
Anyway, It's obvious that some folks won't like me or just don't want to converse with me in a respectful manner. They haven't walked a mile in my shoes of life, so they don't really know me. In fact if they met me they might think differently, as I'm a pretty amiable person. Anyway, I'll leave that up to our moderators to handle. I figure that we all either dig our own holes for our own demise or we build bridges than enhance ours and other's lives. It's our choice.
****
Thanks again for your encouraging post to me.

 

[eots]

hey no problem 8-ball it was pretty offensive reply wasn't it , to discuss these issues with people that have the same prospective from the same sources information that you do is not very interesting or informative and doesn't challenge your beliefs I enjoyed hearing your view on the Jefferson bible ,it caused me to think , inspired me to to start reading more about Jefferson and reminded me what a truly interesting character he was ,I might need to start a Jefferson thread and see where that goes ,I don't want to hijack nuclears patriot manifesto to much ,its so well researched and presented and such important information for anyone willing to think and listen and not just re-act...so anyway cheers ....to our right to agree or respectfully disagree