Tom Usher wrote or added | Israeli soldiers (racist fascists) leveled a mosque in Gaza and destroyed farmland. So-called "fundamentalist settlers," really Nazi-like orthodox land thieves (what's new?) with zero authorization under God, held a Qur'an book burning in another invaded mosque.
How about we level all the synagogues in the US and burn every Talmud and Torah? Would that feel like Kristallnacht or Stalinist Russia or Maoist China? Sure it would. That's why the Zionists in Israel and Palestine are nationalist fascists.
Now, tell me why the US government supports that. I'm not a huge fan of George Washington, but he's rolling over in his grave ashamed that that city is his namesake.
LOL....Ok Tom......You may be right here, although I really don't think that ALL Israeli soldiers are "Racists Fascists" that is obviously not a true statement, some .maybe but all??
but what I really wanna know is....What did George Washington do to garner your dislike?
You find this humorous? It made you laugh out loud?
You took offense last time I referred to "real Christians." Finding even a speck of humor in this is anti-Christ. Are you familiar with the use of the term in the scripture? Let me put it another way for you. Do you think Jesus laughed at me, or the situation, with you? Answer: He did not! How do I know that? I know it because he's not an ass.
Mike, also the last time we had a go-around, I suggested to you that you should ask first. Let me make it really clear:
Mike: Tom, do you think every Israeli soldier is a racist fascist?
Tom: Within certain contexts using particular connotations of the term, they are to a certain extent and simply for the reason that they have not refused in the way the refuseniks, common knowledge in Israel, have done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military.
Just to be really plain for you, I didn't use the term "all" and it is not implied. That said, every Israeli soldier who took part in leveling the mosque and ruining farmland is absolutely a fascist-Zionist, which is racist by definition.
My bad the LOL was for the George Washington comment...I just have never heard anyone say they were not a huge fan of the Father of our Country. Curious as to why?
But as for the Racist Fascist comment I am not sure how one could take that any other way then you meaning "all" I mean of course they are ALL not racist. And then again you did not imply that "some" were racist and fascist...I think it would very hard for someone to read it any other way then what I thought as well.
You are implying that every Israeli soldier should refuse to fight against an enemy that wants to kill them..regardless of who is right or who is wrong, A soldiers job is to fight the enemy....The blame( if there is any) should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the leaders of that Government.
The politics aside...these are just young men and women serving there country, by law. I understand where you are coming from with all this but boy that is asking just to much for someone to contemplate especially in this case of what is going on in that region.
"My country right or wrong" is a stupid, inexcusable, anti-Christian position.
I said "all" in my reply comment.
Israeli refuseniks are living proof that you are wrong.
Well the big problem here Tom is that YOU think they are wrong...Obviously there is a great deal of debate about that.
It's obvious: Anyone who knows even just a little bit about the Palestine-Israel conflict and can read what I've written would already know that there is a debate and I've said the Zionists are wrong. So what?
Now, unless you can tell me something I don't already know here and to convince me to change my mind, quit commenting on my post.
My only reason for commenting AT ALL was that you stated what I believed to be a terribly inaccurate statement by suggesting that Israeli soldiers were Racist Fascists!
You seem to be sticking that opinion? Why not just amend your post and then there will be no ambiguity about it.
I don't think you can ever have an open and honest debate by starting off your post with such a statement.
It's too bad for you that when you read it you took it as saying "all" without realizing that it didn't have to be taken that way. It doesn't change the fact. That was only one thing that rubbed me the wrong way in your initial comment. You're defending Apartheid Zionists. You've danced all around how un-Christian your position is.
I'm not going to change my post. Even suggesting it shows that you still don't get it. I've already made the reasons clear. They can refuse to knock down mosques or to protect thieves and arsonists (calling them settlers) burning Qur'ans and doing all the other despicable things. If you don't like it, try taking it up with God. God won't agree with your crap though.
We've already been through this now in a couple of other threads. They are what they do, and they do fascism, period. If they don't want to be fascistic/fascists, then they can stop acting like fascist, Nazi, police-state, ethnic-cleansing, land-thieving, war-mongering sociopaths. That's clear! Quit being thick in the head.
How come you never answered my question about George Washington?
Go back. Look at our threads. Count the questions you didn't answer.
"And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."
I'm not messing around. Spiritual things are happening. I'm involved.
Why are you such an angry man?
I enjoy you two arguing, it's really fun to watch by the way :P
Not to fear, I've been told by Tom to shew away and all that before too :O) Don't worry Mike I am not really an angry person :O) I USE to be though. That was when I first got involved in Christianity is when I became angry because I started reading conspiracy theories and all that stuff. Believe me when I say it pushed me away from basically everybody because I refused to accept ANYTHING over than what I was seeing or thinking. Very narrow minded of myself. When I called that off and got rid of it, I started to open up and eenjoy life some. Now at least I won't have to have that in mind if I have a heart attack before 25 or anything :O)
Now that I have been all sharing, yall can continue now :D
LOL...thanks Chris... I actually am not opposed to the idea of Conspiracy theories. I believe plenty of them, but there gets to be a point where they become, for one thing an "Easy way out" explanation ..or they just don't make sense...Like a lot of the ones I am hearing from Tom in these posts. there has to be some "there" there for me to buy into them.
True to form, Chris: You were all sensitive about the homosexuals being able to have civil unions, but to Hell with the brown people who've sneaked into the country to gain a little to send back home where their nations have been raped by major world corporations. You support the unconstitutional Arizona law, which I explained to you in great detail as to why it's unconstitutional and immoral; but you didn't acknowledge but rather went silent so you could pull another of these blow in, say some inane things, and blow out with a "don't call us, we'll call you" approach that you've claimed here in a twisted way that I've done to you.
No, I've been straight up toward you, always. I've always spoken to you able to backup everything I said with facts and did. You decided to argue with me about homosexuals when you knew I'm not coercive about the issue but that my stance is against the flat out lies that souls can't change, Jesus was a homosexual, Jesus wasn't opposed to the sin, and homosexuality isn't always ultimately harmful. You're too busy esteeming yourself and not caring to care about the plain hypocrisy you're showing here.
Your feel-good and enjoy-life positions are nothing but substitutes for having no underpinnings for your views. If you feel good about yourself now and have built up your self-esteem based on that, then what will help you when you stand before your maker (and you will)?
Are you now an atheist/agnostic? You're talking more and more as one but not as one who at least tries to be consistent.
Yes, I told you to go away when you were continuing to spew against universal healthcare but hadn't read a thing about what any other country in the world has done to provide it and at a lower cost and higher levels of quality. I asked you to go away to read up on it before continuing. You didn't like that. You claimed that my approach pushed people away from Jesus.
As for you, Mike,
You've defended fascist, racist, Zionist, IDF soldiers following illegal "orders" to go into Gaza to level a mosque and bulldoze the farm land of people who don't get enough to eat now for years accept via tunnels to Egypt. Now you're back here again dancing all around with Chris not saying anything of merit.
You took exception to my statement that the neocon/Zionist/Mossad was behind 9/11. You think building 7 fell down due to the little damage and some fire. It fell down in its own footprint on cue. The BBC and CNN reported it had fallen before it had. The police were told it was coming down. They were moving people away before it happened. Explosions were recorded while this was all happening. There's no "there, there" though for you. PNAC and AIPAC and all the Zionist literature about the planned ethnic cleansing of the Zionist Project doesn't add up for you. All the neocon-Zionist lies in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq were just coincidental for you. 9/11 commission members openly stating that there has been a cover-up isn't good enough for you.
Then you read into my use of the term "void" concerning overturning Glass-Steagall as if I'm an illiterate. I said Obama needs to void Gramm-Leach. It was a 140-character-maximum Twitter tweet, but you came on as if I had to have made clear that Obama's word is not law, as if I've elevated him to the status of the ancient Pharaohs. How is it that you can read that I've read as much as I have and written as much and imagine that I didn't know that? I've said you need to look in the mirror because jumping to that conclusion as you did was stupid. Everyone can jump to false conclusions, but once it's been pointed out, it's incumbent upon one to acknowledge it and to learn from it.
I explained that the connotations of the term clearly include more than your narrow assumption, but where did that get us? Did you change and start thinking about what I might be meaning before jumping me?
Then it was on to your claim that Obama couldn't have used the current disaster in the Gulf to call for a change from supporting Big Oil over clean, sustainable alternatives, as in a crash course in research, development, and bringing it on line. However, many other politicians stood up. All you did is fall for the pathetic DLC approach that Bill Clinton has now admitted was an error in that he was duped (he claims) by the neolibs. Ralph Nader was right all along. It was a terrible error that the Democrats backed off educating the masses. The move to the center-right has been a tragedy.
Of course, I know you're one of them. You're a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. You're a New Labour, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton triangulator, aren't you? Actually, aren't you really a Zionist and neocon? You call yourself a Christian, but each time I've referred to Christ and his statement, you've ignored it. Declare yourself. You're great at trying to run me down, but where do you stand? I take clear stances. So far, you've been vacuous.
You didn't like it that I quoted David Rockefeller thanking all the mass media moguls in supporting what had been up to then their secret plan to do away with the self-determination of nation-states to replace it with world government by the world bankers and intellectual elite (his terms). Even with that in your face, you're here saying there's no there, there.
You act the troll, Mike. You aren't credible.
The two of you are so much parts of the problem and not the solution. You are not standing up for truth.
Get thee behind me, Satan. Neither one of you is being a real friend here.
Tom I did not even read your comment about me because you Obviously cannot READ!!!
Let me try one more time!!!!..................
...ah screw it..Believe what you want Tom...If you wanna say that Israeli Soldiers are Racist and Fascists and believe that is OK, And wanna stand by that .....You go right ahead, I really could care less. :)
BTW....Ok I decided to read a bit...MISTAKE...Yours...again it seems that you may have a reading problem. What with all this about Building 7? We have never even talked about that, and if we did I would have agreed with you. Yes I think there was some odd circumstances to its collapse, as well as for the Pentagon to!!
Oh and PLEASE stop saying that I am not a Born again Christian....it is very offensive ....I have been since I was
8 yrs old..My Daddy has the Bible that he wrote it in to prove that. Now this is something I am SURE Jesus would not adore about you. :)
It has become quite clear to me what I'm dealing with here. You comment without reading. Then you read only a bit before commenting again. The point of building 7 is not that you'd disagree with me but in connection with all the rest of what I've said. I had all ready heard you say that you buy into some of the 9/11 Truth Movement, so that's why I wrote what I did. "I find very often that there are many conspiracy theories that I find to be very possible if not probable, JFK, MLK, The Pentagon on 9/11," you wrote elsewhere. Of course I had that in mind when I wrote my reply comment.
The issue is the sum total of what I've written versus what you've written in reply. You refuse to address Zionism. That's clear. I've mentioned it, what, 10 times in this thread alone, and you've ducked it and dodged it and refused to address it. How painfully obvious is that to anyone reading this?
If you agree with building 7, who did it? How could it not have been the neocons? Everyone knows full well that neocons are Zionists. The neocons in the Bush-43 administration were all Zionists. Bush-43 "converted" to Zionism just to make his path smoother. His father was anti-Zionist in many respects and had AIPAC money against him in his reelection bid and lost largely on account of it.
Who doesn't know that the neocon-Zionist plan to attack and invade and occupy and control Iraq was all mapped out years before Bush-43 stole the election? Only people living under rocks or completely cut off from even the mainstream global media don't know it.
Now, you don't answer questions but duck and dodge when it suits you. You're an Internet troll whether you realize it or not. The shoe fits.
WOW You have some Issues don't you Tom....I think you should be spending more time Preaching about the Love of Jesus then worrying about all the other stuff you believe in.
God Bless you though in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here?
Â Â Â Â
I have issues with liars.
You're a Zionist, Mike; and there's no such thing as a Christian-Zionist.
Jesus is not with the racist, Zionist fascists. He is not with those who are murdering the Gazans. Jesus is with the full-time truth-tellers he loves, none of whom duck the issues.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)