sab page 9

Hurl

fair blog but just because THEY say they are a nuclear state doesnt mean THEY are a nuclear state.  And as a conservative myself, it embarrasses me when other conservatives spout the WAKE UP cliche.  liberals are as American as you and I.  We all love our country.  It's arrogant of us to resort to name calling and such. Just my take.  But I do appreciate your passion and I share your same belief system.   Posted by Hurl on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:21 PM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	Hurl: Liberals don't love our country NOW, they love its potential for what it can be...in their eyes and shaping. Hillary Clinton, for one, has stated she loved the America "yet to be"....which means they want to shape it in their eyes and philosophy and then love it. They don't love much of America now. They think it is a racist, homophobic, sexist, and warmongering place. Many liberals say we are NOT the greatest country in the world. THEY told me, Hurl! To my face during anti war protests. Not an isolated case. So some liberals do love our nation unconditionally, but I bet dollars to donuts it is conditional and in the minority.   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:36 AM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Liberals may be technically "American" but they are far from what America was founded on.  For example, I just heard a stat that 53% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of socialism.  Well we were founded as a capitalist society, and frankly I don't give two shits if a liberal is offended my me calling them dumbasses.  They simply are and they are not as American as I am.  Sorry.  They are a cancer.  We are devolving into socialized Europe.  We are at the cross roads of surfdom.   Posted by Timothy on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:07 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict	Timothy, "Well we were founded as a capitalist society," I think we should do away with money and go back to the trade system. That way most will work and the profit margin goes DOWN, thus eliminating greed. There is no way a conservative can gripe about that system because it requires working people... Any conservative that disagrees is showing their true greed.   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 6:21 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Not everyone wants to move into a sweat lodge Patty.  Have another hit...   Posted by Timothy on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 11:44 AM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict	Timothy, "Not everyone wants to move into a sweat lodge Patty.  Have another hit..." oh, so you ADMIT you are greedy then? What was wrong with the trade system? You don't have anything logical to counter that , do you? People worked HARDER then (in the pioneer days) than they do now. So I offer this solution and you chastize it? That shows greed. Here, I will make it simple for you... ALL GREEDY PEOPLE SHOULD DIE!!!        Posted by EurodanceAddict on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 3:45 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Un like YOU Patty, I don't tell people what they should do with their lives.  If someone wants to work their ass off and make a lot of money and spend or keep it for themselves IT IS JUST FINE BY ME.  ASS HATS LIKE YOU SIT ON YOUR FAT BUTT AND WANT TO JUDGE THEM GREEDY JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF IT.  YOU ARE THE GREEDY BASTARD IN MY BOOK.  WHAT OTHERS DO WITH THEIR TIME AND MONEY IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS OR MINE.  BUT GO AHEAD AND POKE YOUR NOSE OVER YOUR NEIGHBOR'S FENCE.  MAYBE YOU'LL GET YOUR HEAD BLOWN OFF!   Posted by Timothy on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:23 AM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	Oh shut up you commie. Like YOUR not "greedy?" You wouldn't be wanting greedy people to die if you weren't greedy. The problem with you is that you covet what others have instead of making something for yourself. You are too busy focusing on who is making what to truly work YOUR way up.   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 4:07 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict	Sabrina, "Oh shut up you commie. Like YOUR not "greedy?" You wouldn't be wanting greedy people to die if you weren't greedy. Like I said before, I don't need anybody's money and we should go back to the trade system. Funny you are acting like the shoe fits YOU Sabrina, or it wouldnt bother you that I attack greed. It looks like you are showing your true colors Mrs. Golddigger. " The problem with you is that you covet what others have instead of making something for yourself. " You are a fucking idiot, I don't GET welfare dumbass. "You are too busy focusing on who is making what to truly work YOUR way up." See? you want to work your way "UP", THAT'S GREED!!! you want to be rich!! I finally exposed you, greedy bitch!!   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 4:53 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	YOUR SOLUTION IS TO GO BACK TO A SYSTEM NO ONE WILL AGREE TO GO BACK TO.  OK, PATTY!   Posted by Timothy on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:21 AM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	Oh shut up, fatty. I'm a golddigger? Do you know anything about me or my life? No but I'm going to educate you here. I married my husband when we both had barely anything to our names. We are working our way up and SCREW YOU for trying to tell me that's "wrong." You are a Godless, fat, adulterous, a-moral slimeball and I would never listen to anything you have to say. There is nothing wrong with working your way up. It's called ambitions. It's what used to drive this country until lazy slobs like you invaded. If you have a problem with ambition than perhaps you should just sit on your couch, keep getting fat and stop trying to interfere with people who actually want to make something of themselves. Oh and Happy Valentine's Day, I'm sure you'll have more than enough whale blubber to keep you warm tonight   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 4:57 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	SHAME ON YOU SABRINA FOR HAVING AMBITION, LOL!  AFTER ALL, AMBITION IS WHAT MADE THIS COUNTRY THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!  I APLAUD YOU AND YOURS!! IF PATTY HAD HIS WAY, WE WOULD ALL LIVE IN TENTS, SUFFERING FROM THE CHANGES IN THE WEATHER JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE BEASTS OF THE FOREST.  WE WOULD BE EQUALLY MISERABLE!   Posted by Timothy on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:21 AM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict	Ok Sabrina, I just had a talk with Likas mom and her Pastor Dad about whether Jesus would be a liberal or Conservative. Basically, she said my arguing with people like you is a waste of time because fundamentalists are hateful people who see everything in absolutes and Lika's Pastor Dad said its called "Harrasey". I don't know the spelling of it. Overall, they both agreed that it is Jesus's/Gods view to look after your fellow man even if they are poor and she said for me to have you look up "The Year of The Jubilee" to totally trump anything you have posted here in your blogs. I did some research myself to bring you the paste of what demonstrates it. I will close out with the paste and just say that I TOTALLY trust a Pastor of 22 years and the scripture that they recommended over your 21 year old clueless ass. I will make sure you post this comment or I will post it in a blog entitled 'Sabrina owned by a Pastor" I don't take credit for it and give her Dad and Mom the kudos for up-ending your greedy facade. a. Jubilee (Lev 25) as a whole i. A release from materialism Inner peace Materialism is the belief that only matter is real or important and so, as a consequence, there’s the rejection of spiritual things. It’s the rejection of God for the possession of something earthly. It’s a devotion to and a desire for earthly things and a rejection of all spiritual things that have no earthly point or advantage. It’s a trust in things that are transient but a distrust of God. It’s a reliance upon earthly possessions for security. Materialism is, therefore, an example of idolatry. We often limit it to the accumulation of wealth or possessions but it goes much deeper than that. In Luke 18:18-30 we find Jesus dealing with the ‘rich young ruler’ and trying to show him what he lacked to be able to follow Him as one of His disciples. Jesus’ exclamation (Luke 18:24) ‘How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the Kingdom of God’ is not a condemnation of rich people in general but a warning. The rich young ruler was alright trusting in God so long as he had earthly security. When that was challenged, he had to make a choice - either trust wholly in God or trust in material things. Unfortunately, he rejected the Messiah and God’s purposes for himself for the possession of something earthly, something that he had always relied upon and which gave him comfort and peace knowing that no matter how difficult the world got ‘out there’ there was always a place of retreat. Jesus is certainly not condemning the rich and it would be wrong of us to think that He’s trying to teach His disciples that it is a sin to be such - but it’s a sin to seek security in anything material (and, note this, that can include a church building, a way of structuring church meetings or reliance upon one of God’s servants. We need to focus our attention not upon the materialism of those who don’t profess to know God but upon our own lives and how we allow materialism to dominate us). The Jubilee legislation taught Israel not to be dependent upon or to find security in the accumulation of possessions - each Israelite would end up in the same financial state in which he began the previous fifty years (even if the man died, the family name was to be perpetuated through his sons and they would inherit the father’s land - Deut 25:5-10), thus freeing the Israelites from any grip that materialism had over them. By the dissolution of the accumulation of both property (Lev 25:28) and people (Lev 25:40-41) and the forbidding of persistent toil to achieve materialistic ends (Lev 25:11), the Israelites need have no anxiety for or striving after self-gain. Eccles 5:10 reads ‘He who loves money will not be satisfied with money; nor he who loves wealth, with gain: this also is vanity [or ‘emptiness’]’ and Eccles 5:12 that ‘ ...the surfeit of the rich will not let him sleep’ These two verses make way for the situation that Jesus found Himself in in Luke 12:13-21 and the parable that He told. Striving after earthly possessions has got nothing to do with living for God - however much we would like to spiritualise it - because there’s always a selfish desire for us to make our lives easier than they currently are. Yet, at the end of the day, we’ll either have unceasing anxiety or we won’t have been devoted to the things of the Kingdom and in promoting the Gospel - or both. God intended His people to have peace in their hearts and enjoy life, not to be taken up with the accumulation of transient, earthly riches that could give no lasting satisfaction. When you come to the realisation that the cross of Christ cannot be grasped materially (that is, there’s nothing ‘physical’ that can be obtained that saves an individual - however much some organisations like to have physical objects to focus on) then, if the cross is the most valuable ‘possession’ of your life, material objects begin to lose their appeal. Jesus talked at some length to His disciples about materialism in Mtw 6:25-33, concluding with the words ‘...seek first [God’s] Kingdom and His righteousness [that is, right-standing - where, see on ‘Justification’] and all these things [material possessions] shall be yours as well’ God will provide for a believer’s needs - but needs aren’t what a believer should be striving for and wasting his energy on. ii. A care for the brethren Giving/care By removing the Israelites’ heart from potential materialism, it opened up the way for them to use what’s earthly for the benefit and welfare of their brethren (especially their immediate family) through the redemption of a brother’s land (Lev 25:25), the redemption of a brother from slavery (Lev 25:47-49) or by the brother’s maintenance (Lev 25:35-37). MY OWN NOTE: The above IS redistribution of wealth The Jubilee legislation had as an underlying principal that other people and not self-possessions are important. Man, created in God’s image (Gen 1:26) is to be safeguarded, cared for and looked after. In other parts of the Law, this principal comes across just as strongly (for example, read the passages Deut 21:10-14, 21:15-17, Ex 21:28-32, 22:9, 22:16-17, 22:21-24, 23:4-5) for the premise ‘Love God...Love man’ is the sole basis of the Law (Mtw 22:34-40). Though Israel never fully attained what God had planned for them, it doesn’t nullify the purpose of God in the giving of the Law. This care for the brethren was God’s intention also in the early Church. The believers forsook any heart-commitment to material things, sharing all things for the maintenance of the poor among them (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35), even selling land that was under their ownership (Acts 4:36-37). Even a group of believers in one region were committed to another in a different area because of the common bond that existed in Christ (II Cor 8:3-4) and travelling ministers were looked after by the brethren in whichever town they found themselves because of the unity of purpose that each of them shared. Such care for the poor amongst the ranks of the Church can only fully exist when the realisation comes to individuals that our eternal treasure of and in Christ is of far more value than any transient, earthly possession. When the believers had their possessions plundered (probably through persecution), they accepted it ‘joyfully’ because they looked to the surpassing value of their eternal possession in Christ (Heb 10:34). Note well that a materialistic society is one that causes one person to become rich at the expense of another, creating class systems and divisions within a nation. If a nation disregards the importance of material treasure and seeks to supply the need of the poor, that society will recognise no class division. So it would have been in Israel if the legislation of Jubilee - and of the sabbatical year - had been carried out fully. Before you rush out and think that your nation’s problems can be resolved by a redistribution of wealth throughout the land, it must also be noted that sin is what prevents such altruistic ideals from ever finding a fulfilment. First, sin must be dealt with (that’s why the year of Jubilee could only begin when the Day of Atonement had dealt with the nation’s sin) before a man will have the power to enforce the desire of his new heart. MY OWN NOTE: as demonstrated in the above, purposeful class division is a sin and therefore purposefully encouraging the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor, you are guilty of keeping that division intact. Redistribution of wealth makes unity and this is something else Lika's mom had commented on. A non-materialistic society is one that voluntarily makes others rich at their own expense, following the example of Christ who, though he was rich, became poor, so that by His poverty we might become rich beyond measure (II Cor 8:9). With this, if you totally go by "Gods Word" as you call the Bible, Sabrina, then you can either be materialistic (try to become rich by eliminating redistribution of wealth which is a sin, or you can save your integrity by actually going by your Bible the way it commands. This blows out your entire agenda of your blog and purpose of being on myspace (trying to end redistribution of wealth and still maintain being a Christian.) None of your commenter's are qualified to beat out the Bibles words nor a 22 year pastor so they need not try and bail you out here.   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:19 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	One bit of warning, Urinedouche, if you are trying to have a baby with Lika: Please, remember the right hole.   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 6:46 PM [Reply to this]

	EurodanceAddict	do you always use little girls of anime for sexual references? and you wonder why you get called a pedophile?   Posted by EurodanceAddict on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:19 AM

	Hurl	i do agree that the liberals seem to think that europe's socialist model is our utopia.  however, i believe they love this country.  they just happen to be misguided, arrogant and wrong about what it is ideal for us.   Posted by Hurl on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:39 AM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	..Better to be safe than sorry but I do appreciate your point of view   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 8:24 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	It baffles me how most of you forget how the same people who supported the 9-11 attacks are still out there planning and hoping for America's demise....Iran hates us just as much as they did when Bush was in office and they are now a nuclear state! What are you scared of? They are not a "nuclear state" as in a "nuclear weapons state." They have enriched uranium enough to create electricity. They are nowhere near making a weapon, and they have said for years that they have no plans to make weapons. After 9/11, the Iranians held candlelit vigils and 65,000 of them respected a minute of silence for America in the Tehran football stadium. To say, "They hate us," is only half the story at most and a deadly oversimplification at best. They helped with Afghanistan after the Taliban was disbanded. Weeks later, the Bush Administration labeled them as part of the Axis of Evil, ruining the unique chance for more communication and diplomacy with the country. The Obama team has followed suit.   Posted by Karlie on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:05 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	"They have enriched uranium enough to create electricity. They are nowhere near making a weapon, and they have said for years that they have no plans to make weapons." Yes, and they also said they don't have gays either.    I suppose they want to use nuclear energy instead of burning fossil fuel cause he's concerned with "global warming."  Is that the way you see it Karley?    Posted by Timothy on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 5:02 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	Or maybe it is for the same reason any other country, including the US, would want to build nuclear power plants--because 1 kg of uranium can produce more energy than 200 barrels of oil? Building nuclear power plants is an investment in cheap energy.   Posted by Karlie on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 11:42 AM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Interesting how the demoCraps continue to NOT allow the building of nuclear power plants in the US.  Yet they love it when "peaceful" ideologs thumping their fists that they will bury the US or Israel want to build nucear plants for electricity (ha haaa).  Burning fossil fuel IS cheap energy you fuckin moron, particularly in Iran!!  There is no other reason to develop nukes other than to threaten his neighbors, and black mail the US.  You are incapable of understanding this because you have never picked up a history book.....Until you do, shut your pie hole.   Posted by Timothy on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 3:46 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	Timothy: Interesting how the demoCraps continue to NOT allow the building of nuclear power plants in the US. President Obama guarantees loans for nuclear reactors in the US:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7230761/President-Obama-to-step-up-support-for-US-nuclear-industry.html Nuclear power in the US fuels 20% energy. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html Timothy: Yet they love it when "peaceful" ideologs thumping their fists that they will bury the US or Israel want to build nucear plants for electricity (ha haaa). "No one has presented any concrete evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This has been asserted in every inspection report of Iran carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and our own American National Intelligence Estimate. Iranian officials have renounced nuclear weapons as un-Islamic and unnecessary for Iran’s defense. Iran has not launched a first strike against any nation for more than 300 years, and it will not attack Israel or any other nation. It will, however, defend itself." http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=45da4133e732d2bcc5e9f8a83e1a0e6e Concrete evidence is also known as indisputable fact, which you are asserting you have--you do not. It is something you would be willing to bet, at the best, hundreds of thousands of lives and, at worst WWIII. I believe anything within those parameters would be despicable to set in motion without actual proof. Timothy: Burning fossil fuel IS cheap energy you fuckin moron, particularly in Iran!! "Iran's demand for electricity is increasing annually by more than ten percent, and if the country does not start the operation of its nuclear stations, after 2020 it will not have oil for export. Currently, Iran produces 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. In 1979 the country was producing six million barrels per day. 80 percent of Iran's oil wells have worked half of their exploration period, and despite pumping 80 million cubic meters of gas into these wells per day, oil production is not increasing." Yes, they require more alternative and cheaper energy to maintain oil exports. http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1579299.html Timothy There is no other reason to develop nukes other than to threaten his neighbors, and black mail the US. There is no other reason to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has not developed nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that they plan to. However, the US and Israel do have nuclear weapons, stockpiles of them. Is their primary use to "threaten neighbors" and "blackmail"? If so, why do you feel this behavior is fine for us but that we should have higher standards of others? If not, why can't you imagine another country would want weapons as a defensive measure? Timothy You are incapable of understanding this because you have never picked up a history book.....Until you do, shut your pie hole. Based on your inability to produce an original thought, or even though based in fact, and on your juvenile level of literacy, I can say with a good amount of certainty that I read more books each month than you have in your entire existence--and, yes, many of them are history books.   Posted by Karlie on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 6:46 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Tell me when, how many decades have come and gone since a reactor has been built in the United States?  We are increasingly dependent on outside sources of energy, even to refine gas.  What is the energy policy of the demoCraps that actually includes energy?  Wind power is a joke.  Wave power is a joke.  DemonShits have for decades increased the insecurity of the United States, with energy policy that hurt not helped.   Posted by Timothy on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 12:21 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 12:21 AM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	Are you dense, or do you not know that Palestine and Iran are two different places?   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:38 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	Uh, we are talking about Islam now, genius. Most of Iran is Muslim, or did you get the memo?   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 1:38 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Karlie still believes Bill Maure's bs, that it is the dna, and not the ideology we are fearful of....  It is sad how these mental midgets allow themselves to be led around, without logic grounded in the truth.   Posted by Timothy on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 3:46 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	I'm sorry, Michael! I don't live in Fail-Logic Land! Let me tell you what just happened, back in reality! Sabrina said: Iran hates us just as much as they did.... Karlie replies:Iranians held candlelit vigils.....Tehran..... Note for Michael: Tehran is in Iran. Repeat. When someone says something about "Tehran," they are, in fact, talking a PLACE within the COUNTRY of Iran. Not about ISLAM, a religion. Michael, way out in left field, posts: videos depicting Palestinian Muslims. Karlie asks: Do you not know the difference between Palestinians and Iranians. Michael, failing, decides he can change the subject to Islam, because, despite the topic being IRAN and IRANIANS, a PLACE and the people who LIVE IN THAT PLACE, Michael seems to believe that we have been talking about a religious group. Michael apparently believes that all people from that religious group are the same, and can be substituted one for the other. Since he believes this, he concludes that the names of all countries with a  majority Muslim population, such as Iran, can be substituted with the term "Islam," and all of their people can be interchangeably called "Muslims" rather than "Iranians" whenever his argument calls for this. In reality, we know that this doesn't work because we have common sense. In Fail-Logic Land, however, this "reasoning" allows him to place the blame on IRANIANS for the actions of non-Iranians simply because they share a religion. Luckily, we do not all live in Fail-Logic Land. Remember! again, IRAN is a country. When someone talks about IRAN, they are talking about a geographical location, the Iranian government, and/or the Iranian people....NOT about "Islam," which is a religion. We're talking about a country, IRAN. If we wanted to talk about ISLAM, the religion, we'd be saying things like "Islam," or "Muslim," rather than "IRAN" and "IRANIAN." Note that neither I nor the clip from Sabrina mentions Muslims or Islam....only IRAN and IRANIANS. This rather sad logical fail has resulted because it is easier for Michael to group all Muslims together rather than to respond to FACTS presented about the IRANIAN responses to 9/11--that they held candlelit vigils, that 65,000 Iranians held a minute's silence in the Tehran stadium for the victims of 9/11, and that they helped US in Afghanistan. Michael, please refrain from using Orwellian language BS with me, and if you don't realize when you're doing it, it might be better if you didn't reply to me at all.   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 7:34 PM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	Michael, please refrain from using Orwellian language BS with me, and if you don't realize when you're doing it, it might be better if you didn't reply to me at all. Orwellian, as in Orson Wellian? Sell no wine before it's time? No Reply at all? genesis No Reply At All Uploaded by massi95. - Explore more music videos.   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 12:13 PM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	When someone talks about IRAN, they are talking about a geographical location, the Iranian government, and/or the Iranian people....NOT about "Islam," which is a religion. We're talking about a country, IRAN. If we wanted to talk about ISLAM, the religion, we'd be saying things like "Islam," or "Muslim," rather than "IRAN" and "IRANIAN." Note that neither I nor the clip from Sabrina mentions Muslims or Islam....only IRAN and IRANIANS.   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 12:13 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	Yes, it was meant to be Michael. I had to make sure that we were all on the same page, and you seemed to need some information to get you caught up with the conversation ;)   Posted by Karlie on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 1:01 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	This is discusting Mike.  The fact the douch bag left defend these shit heads shows their inability to reason, their lack of basic understanding, and their mental disorder.  I don't think there is a cure!  I think they need to be rounded up and awarded with a "free vacation" at tax payer expense, to be dropped off in these Islamic communities, wearing nothing but bikini briefs.   Posted by Timothy on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:37 AM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 12:21 AM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	.. Gah, I like how these videos get posted so everyone can see the truth but they make me SO PISSED OFF! I need to go work out now...no yoga, I need some kickboxing or some krav. I can't take it.   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 2:40 PM [Reply to this]

	Aim777	CK  this  out  Sabrina ~ and debra isnt  from what I  understand even a  islam and  denying that  9 ~11 ~01  happenned = NUTS !! Amy   Posted by Aim777 on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 12:37 AM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	.."they have said for years that they have no plans to make weapons." Oh yes, I'm really going to take a guy who has called Israel a "stinking corpse" at his word. *rolls eyes*   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:06 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	So why not look at facts? Like the fact that they are no where near having the capability to create a nuclear weapons, despite having had the capability to do more.   Posted by Karlie on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:21 PM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	..Karlie, China is Iran's number 2 customer for oil following only after Japan. Do you know what else China is? China is considered to be a super power by U.N. standards. They get Security Council Veto meaning, not only are they supplying funds to Iran, but they can also veto sanctions AGAINST Iran if Iran wanted to make bombs.   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 2:42 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	What are you worried about? Do you think we can police every country's armament? I'm under the impression you would be p.o.ed if the IRS came by tomorrow, with guns, and told you that you were not allowed to have any. We've gone down this road of trying to rid a country of "WMDs" before. Nearly a decade later, we still haven't fixed what we've done.   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 7:34 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	What the fuck you think will happen after Iran get's the bomb?  Every Arab state in the region will nuke up too, that is what will happen.  If you are so clueless to see what will happen then God help you.  These people kill their own children in acts of terror.  If they get the bomb, they will attack us with NO, with ZERO concern for the consequence.  When the cold war was going on, at least the USSR was held at bay not wanting to endure our missles landing in their own communities.  We have to police these nut jobs, and your inability to understand that is mind boggling.   Posted by Timothy on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 7:57 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	If you can't see the problem with this, you're blind. Iran wants nukes because its enemies, especially close enemies like Israel, have nukes. You're assuming some very strange things here, the first of which is that you believe a dictator would do something that would remove himself from power. You think Ahmadinejad isn't aware of what happened in to Saddam? You think he's too stupid to figure out that if he nuked anyone, he'd be dead and would no longer enjoy a position of power? The other thing you're assuming is that Iran having a nuke would enable Iran to attack the US. Have you looked at a map? Ever? Iran can barely get little rockets a few tiny countries over, and you believe they're going to be able to launch a nuclear attack on the US half a world away? Unbelievable. Stop policing the world, maybe they wouldn't feel so threatened. Ahmadinejad obviously has no care for our sanctions. He's obviously playing a power card--telling everyone else to back off or else he will start making nuclear weapons. A catch 22. Short of invading the country and starting World War III, there's not much the United States can do about Iran but enter peaceful negotiations.   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 8:30 PM [Reply to this]

	Michael, "The Situation" Guy! Michael Rochester	If you can't see the problem with this, you're blind. Maybe Timothy can be governor of New York? Heck he can't do any worst than the other blind guy running us.   Posted by Michael, "The Situation" Guy! on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 12:13 PM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	Thanks Mike!  Soooorry though I don't want the job,  tooo many loones there.    Posted by Timothy on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 5:04 PM [Reply to this]

	joe	Karlie said So why not look at facts? Like the fact that they are no where near having the capability to create a nuclear weapons, despite having had the capability to do more. Oh please (what you call facts is nothing more than conjecture based on rumor)   Posted by joe on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:37 AM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	"I want to announce with a loud voice here that the first package of 20 percent fuel was produced and provided to the scientists," he said. Enriching uranium produces fuel for a nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons if enriched further to 90 percent or more. -FoxNews   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 7:34 PM [Reply to this]

	Sabrina Phillips	..The facts are that we shouldn't be acting like they can't or won't strike us because they already have...or did you forget September 11th?   Posted by Sabrina Phillips on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 9:39 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	Are you suggesting that Iranians attacked us on 9/11? Or that Ahmadinejad was the mastermind of 9/11? Saudis and Pakistanis from an extremist terror group attacked us on 9/11, Sabrina. Not the people of Iran nor their president who was elected nearly half a decade after 9/11 occurred.   Posted by Karlie on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:37 AM [Reply to this]

	Timothy	The Hitler of Iran has an ideology no different from the nut jobs that attacked us on 911 dumbass.   Posted by Timothy on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 9:01 PM [Reply to this]

	Karlie Karlie Mason	That's funny that you would compare his "ideology" with Muslim extremists from 9/11, considering he is almost a full-fledged Truther who believes that if the US government didn't orchestrate 9/11, they certainly used it to their advantage. "Even the issue of 11 September is a suspicious development. Many of the researchers and opinion-holders are of the view that the issue of 11 September is an American-Zionist issue. It is an excuse for military presence in the Middle East." The president said the enemies, after failing to dominate the region through sedition, have now turned to military action in the region. He said issues such as human rights were a pretext for the West to enter the Middle East. He said the West aimed to hold control of the energy resources of the region to save its economic failure. For someone who believes this, why would he want to attack the US or Israel to give them a REASON to invade Iran?   Posted by Karlie on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 2:06 PM [Reply to this]

Timothy

I'm sorry no one comes and visits you during visitation hours, Karlie.   Posted by Timothy on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 5:03 PM [Reply to this]