The American Spectator

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 6:42AM

Santorum, the mad bomber, is no Catholic. His chicken hawk warmongering is against every concept of Catholic Just War Doctrine. This so-called pro-lifer supported Arlen Spector. Arlen Spector was one of the most rabid pro-abortion members in Congress. His opponent Pat Toomey had a consistant pro-life record. He also supported and gave cover to the abortion lover Christie Todd Whitman. When it came between what Bush wanted him to do and the babies Santorum chose Bush every time. I have been a pro-life activist for decades. I will never vote for Santorum for President. You can't be for agresssive war and call yourself pro-life.

Doorgunner| 1.6.12 @ 7:04AM

Put your helmet back on, rontard, grab your sippy cup, and get back on tbat short bus. It's just about time for you to go.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:25AM

Another brilliant comment door gunner. You are as brilliant as your hero Santorum. The more Santorum talks, the more the wars, and endless aid to Israel will be issues. They are cancers on the American body politic. The more they are discussed the better. Santorum is moving the debate along. If the American's want WW3 they can vote for Rick. I think most Americans think he is crazy including about 60% of Pennsylvanians who booted him out in his last election.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:39AM

The poll mentioned above in the Washington Times shows a huge surge for Ron Paul. It was taken after Iowa. He is now at 24% to Romney's 38%. Santorum did get a nice boost to 11%. In New Hampshire independents can vote. I don't think many of them are going to vote for Rick.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 8:54AM

The only "cancers on the American body politic" are bigot douchebags like you.

And for someone who is a self professed "proud 4-F" to call anyone else a "chickenhawk" is about the most hypocritical you write in your daily dreck-ridden screeds. Go be a "live coward" somewhere else. Leave guys like Doorgunner to do your fighting for you, Mr. "Proud 4-F." They're better men than you could ever hope to be.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:21AM

That's A Crap Sandwich Argument From The Israel Firster Smear Bund Neo-Chickenhawk 4-F''er, Con Job.
Jack Ain't Tryin' To Use Our American Warriors As Cannon Fodder And Our American Treasure To Finance Your Israel Firster Agenda To Make Our American Warriors Police The Middle East For Israel.

This Is Gonna Stop.

The tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:44AM

Only Hebrewphobes like yourself believe the horsecrap that we fight wars at the behest of Israel.

Beware the ZOG, Clint. Its coming for you! The Sayeret Matkal commandos are waiting outside your trailer as we speak.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 10:13AM

I'm just getting here. What did I miss?

Hmmmm. Clint is still riding his One Trick Pony around the page. His comments looking more and more like Post American's, every day. (Although, Post American has gotten better, almost exponentially, whereas Clint is continuing his rapid descent in to Madness.)

Everyone who doesn't have a Lifetime Subscription to Ron Paul's Tribute to Bedford Forrest and Bull Conner, is a Neocon (Jew) a Chicken Hawk (Jew) or a JEW (Jew).

He says something about our Troops and Treasure being taken over by a Country that's just a little bigger than Central Park.

And, apparently, the Tea Party isn't where he is, anymore. I don't think he knows where they are. He just says they're on the East Coast.

A lot of JEWS on the East Coast. This could be bad. They've co-opted our Military and Treasury. Can the Tea Party be far behind?

I'm just saying.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:26AM

Mr. Pennell, don't you know that us Jews are EVERYWHERE. We are THAT insidious that we MAKE other countries go to war.

But you're one of the "good" goys. Please check your triple top secret "Goyim Collaborator in the Mass Zionist World Domination Plot" email. There, you'll find the Swiss bank account number where your proceeds of the daily Zionist world fleecing enterprise are now deposited.

As for Clint's robo posts, cut him some slack. He needs them more than he needs oxygen, given the fact that when he writes freehand, his screeds are even MORE nonsensical than Post American's.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.6.12 @ 11:33AM

Why would I check it?

I WRITE it.

Silver Bullet| 1.6.12 @ 5:06PM

Thank you, Timothy and Con Chef: I get so sick to death of Clint's idiocy. You've brought a bit of humor and a laugh. Thank you!

Silver Bullet| 1.6.12 @ 5:06PM

Thank you, Timothy and Con Chef: I get so sick to death of Clint's idiocy. You've brought a bit of humor and a laugh. Thank you!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 5:41PM

Any time, Brother. Clint's just TOO fun a chew toy to be ignored. Same with "Proud 4-F" Jackboot Jack.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:15PM

Painfully true.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 5:50PM

Do Your Homework, Before You Run Your Uninformed Mouth, Con Job.

Dr.Ron Paul,
" While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:15PM

Squeak, squeak.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 5:42PM

Only Israel Firster 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Smear Bund Cowards Like You, Con Job Would Try To Get American Warriors To Be Used As Cannon Fodder To Police The Middle East For Israel.

This Is Gonna Stop.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:28AM

Clint Pukes:

"This Is Gonna Stop."

Who's gonna stop it? Ru Paul ain't gonna be President. Oh, lemme guess. YOU'RE gonna stop it.

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 12:22PM

tHe RuPaUl ReBeLlIoN iS gOnNa GeT sToMpEd On ThE eAsT cOaSt.

Anthony M| 1.6.12 @ 6:31PM

Sorry Clint, he's got you. If you took a powder and didn't serve, you've got no right to call anhyone else a "chickenhawk", even if they are one. Heinlen had a great idea, citizenship only for those who serve. That would make the USA great again.

Clint| 1.7.12 @ 10:43AM

That's A Lie Anthony.

I Didn't Take Any Powder, Liar.

Now, You Wanna Try To Shut Me Up, Punk ?

Hmmmmm, Coward ?

Clint| 1.7.12 @ 12:20PM

Sanrorum Is A Big Government Hypocrite Statist.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01.....-betrayal/

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:16PM

Did you volunteer? Even I did. If you didn't take a powder, why weren't you accepted? Was it because you had uncontrollable enuresis?

Clint| 1.7.12 @ 12:11PM

Santorum Is A Big Government Hypocrite. Statist.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....l-sc-ad-hi

The Tea Party Is On The East Coast.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 12:34PM

I went to my draft board and took my physical. I could have continued to hide in college like Cheney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Bolton or joined the National guard like Bush and Quale. When I got drafted I was as big a gung ho warrior as the chicken hwaks on this site. It made me realize that all my warmongering was a pile of nonsense. My life was worth more to me then some politicians wet dreams. I can't think of a war worth the lives of any of my family or my own life. If you birds love war for Israel, so much enlist in the IDF, and put your own asses on the line.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:27PM

In other words, you're a coward. Plain & simple.

"It made me realize that all my warmongering was a pile of nonsense."

EVERYTHING you spew is a pile of nonsense. But hey, you're living life the way you were told by your pops. As a "live coward."

chuck| 1.6.12 @ 4:59PM

Jack..... the load his momma should have swallowed!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 5:43PM

SPEW ALERT next time, PLEASE! I'm now cleaning Sprite off my computer monitor!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Mike D.| 2.22.12 @ 7:18PM

COWARD!

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:19AM

Mike Hawk: I think your very intelligent comments here are a true inspiration to those of us who like reasoned discussion. I love the fact that Santorum is the last and best hope of the neocons. He and his aggressive warmongering will now be on prime display for the whole nation. There will be a much needed discussion on these wars, and endless aid to Israel. Ron Paul has already won. No one who pushes agressive war can ever again be elected on the Republican ticket.

Ron Paul has changed the whole debate in this country. 80% of the voters want out of these wars. The more the warmongers are exposed, the faster they will vanish from American political life. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden, ended the war in Iraq, and is bringing the troops home from Afganistan. How can you beat that with someone like the chicken hawk warrors like Santorum, Romney and Gingrich? On the economy he will claim it all the fault of Wall Street and the Republican resistence to his program. It worked 4 times for FDR and Truman. It is truely Ron Paul or ruin. He is the only one who has common sense solutions. All the rest are more of the same or even worse then Obama.

Doorgunner| 1.6.12 @ 7:33AM

Mike, hand me a sport and I'll get.the drool off Jack's chin...

And get the bus driver to drop the ramp.

Doorgunner| 1.6.12 @ 7:38AM

sport=wipe?

dang auto-fill

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:17PM

A sport is also a freak of nature, DG...

quite, quite beautiful.

Mike Hawk| 1.6.12 @ 8:17AM

Jack., you are the kid the others used to beat up all the time because you were so full of baloney. Always bragging about all the stuff you did and everyone knew were full of it.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 8:57AM

And he probably got beat up all through his school years because his father told him it was "better to be a live coward." So, in good cowardly fashion, he probably thought that if he left the bullies alone, they'd leave HIM alone. Why would this be surprising from someone who's such an ardent supporter of one of the biggest appeasers since Quisling & Chamberlain.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 8:49AM

"Santorum, the mad bomber, is no Catholic."

So now you're the arbiter of who's Catholic & who isn't? Are you G*d? You're about as "Catholic" as "Rev" Wrong's good buddy, Father Pfleger.

W| 1.6.12 @ 9:03AM

Jack is now judging who is a Catholic and defining Catholicism. I think this proves Jack is Margie.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:41AM

If they're NOT the same person, then they're probably not unlike some inbred trailerpark family from Bumblef**k, AR.

Jack's wife/sister, Margie, gave birth to Clint. That explains why he's so retarded. Not only from the inbreeding, but from the piss poor gene pool he came from to begin with. Their's is a family tree that resembles either a wreath or a telephone pole.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 7:10PM

The liars and anti-Christs are out and about slandering and lying about me again today.

That's ok, they will receive their reward:

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

Oh, and Con-Artist Chef:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also." 1 Jn. 2:22 & 23.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 7:16PM

Nice robo post, Clint's Mom!

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 7:50PM

If the Scripture fits, you must wear it. And it does.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 7:54PM

I don't HAVE to wear any of the bullshit you spew, oh religion of one.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:00PM

"..the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His Hand.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:35 & 36.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:28PM

YAWN

Jewish. Jesus not my Messiah. Transmission ends...

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:44PM

"And I will pour out on the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on Him Whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a first-born." Zechariah 12:10.

"And again another scripture says, "They shall look on Him Whom they have pierced."

After this Joseph of Arimathe'a, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away His Body.

Nicode'mus also, who had at first come to Him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds' weight.

They took the Body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid.

So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there." Jn. 19:37-42.

W| 1.6.12 @ 8:52AM

Jack
Please explain what you mean by Catholic just war doctrine?

Absorba the Greek| 1.6.12 @ 11:03AM

Which one? Urban II and the Council of Clermont's version?

W| 1.6.12 @ 11:08AM

Whatever Jack thinks it is

Absorba the Greek| 1.6.12 @ 11:35AM

Sounds like a good question! I would say off hand that its the more modern we(the Vatican) can't incite warfare anymore because we don't really have much influence like we did 1000 years ago so therefore nobody else should(start a war) either version. Which really isn't altogether unrealistic, but really late to the party in another sense. Doesn't say you can't start one its just the Catholic version of the ground rules. Question is who is the arbitrator of what a just war is! Thats been the trap for most religions that have conducted warfare for God under house rules. Then of course you have the Islamic version, which is in current practice throughout the world. Get some Mullah to create a Jihad for whatever reason that seems fit and off you go. Problem is that Muslims seem to have this taste for killing other Muslims who are not Muslim enough or the wrong kind of Muslim but infidels are open season.

Absorba the Greek| 1.6.12 @ 11:58AM

I would also say that in regards to who takes it upon themselves to arbitrarily decide what just war is under their own personal version of their religion to others or decides who is not a religious enough member of the sect they belong to, always compared of course to themselves, is usually a dangerous fanatic in most cases. Be careful with people like these.

chuck| 1.7.12 @ 9:16AM

I could definitely live with the Muslims killing each other! It's when they decide that killing is so much fun, and we need to expand it to the "infidels", that I have a problem.

W| 1.6.12 @ 9:00AM

Santorum did more for the pro life movement by supporting Specter at the request of Bush than you have done.

With Specter on the Judiciary committe Bush appointed and confirmed Roberts and Alitol. The only way that Roe/Casey is overrruled is if the Supreme Court overrules it or there is a constitutional amendment. Roberts and Alito would probably vote to overrule Roe.

Supporting Toomey in the primary in 2004 over Specter did not mean Toomey would have won. Specter would still have beat him.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:06AM

BINGO! Judicial appointments were on the line. If Santorum hadn't backed ExSpecterate, that self centered ole cuss woudn't have given Alito or Roberts the clout with the Dems on that committee that they needed to be confirmed. It was also ExSpecterate who got Clarance Thomas through as well, despite Ted "I Hope You Can Swim Mary Jo*" Kennedy's best efforts to "Bork" him.

*Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment on this matter.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 12:22PM

Santorum is nonsense about overturning Roe vs Wade. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to restrict the juridiction of the Federal courts. By using this simple Constitutional method Roe could have been overturned, decaades ago, and the question of Abortion returned to the states. Ron Paul is the only one advocating this. If Santorum added this to his advocacy I would have more respect for him. He just mouths pro-life platitudes, when he could do some real good. Of course that still leaves his endless shilling for an attack on Iran that would possibly lead to WW3, in which millions could be killed.

W| 1.6.12 @ 3:01PM

Jack,
You are a legal genius. Since 1973 nobody except you has figured out such a simple, easy, and effctive method. Why do you think that is?

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:21PM

I think it's because the ability to legislatively restrict the courts doesn't apply to the Supreme One, which is its own independent branch of government, whereas the inferior courts are Congress' creation, I dunno, W....

but I lack the legal brilliance of the Cheesehead. Packers! Packer! Fudgepacker!

Ted| 1.6.12 @ 9:59AM

You prove yourself out of your depth when discussing what is and is not Catholic, particularly Just War Theory/Doctrine.

Ted| 1.6.12 @ 10:00AM

My comment above (You prove yourself out of your depth when discussing what is and is not Catholic, particularly Just War Theory/Doctrine) was directed at Jack in Wisconsin.

My apologies to all for the confusion.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 12:55PM

The Catechism defines Catholic Just War Doctrine. It allows war only in the most dire self defense situations. That can only happen after the most fervent efforts are made to avoid it. Mad bomber Rick would attack Iran in a preventive war which is condemned by both the Church and International law. The present Pope and Pope John Paul both condemned and tried to stop the Iraq war as a violation of Catholic teachings. One part of the doctrine says that the war can only be fought if it will improve conditions. Can any sane person say that Iraq with all the dead, wounded, displaced, and the ancient Christian community descimated is a better place? Read the whole history of Catholic Just War doctrine and how it has made the world a far better and more safer place. Blessed are the peacemakers and those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Rick Santorum knows better. He has much to answer for.

W| 1.6.12 @ 1:14PM

Jack,
Don't agree with your interpretation of just war theory.

Every country has the right of self defense. You do not have to wait to be invaded or bombed like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 before you defend yourself. You can take preventive action to defeat your enemy who will attack you. In fact, if you do not take preventive action to defend yourself then you are being careless with the lives of your citizens that your are sworn to protect.

For example, if we had reasonable knowledge that Japan was going to attack us then we had every right and obligation to attack Japan, same if we knew about the 9/11 attack.

You are confusing defending yourself as an individual with defending your country if you are the president and commander in chief. As an individual I can choose to turn the other cheeck as a pacifist and let them kill me. But I cannot make that decision as president for the lives of others. And there is absolutely nothing in Catholic just war theory that says I have to wait to be attacked before acting.

As to Iran, the president should present the case to Congress, ask for a declaration of war, and give Iran notice that its facilities will be destroyed unless OUR inspectors are allowed in to inspect and dismantle IMMEDIATELY.

Killing Hitler would have saved millions of lives. Killing Stalin and Mao would have saved millions of lives.Killing Castro, as JFK attempted, would have saved thousands of lives. Obama is killing terrorrists with the drones to save lives. There is nothing in any just war theory of any type to prevent this.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 2:52PM

"Catholic Just War doctrine and how it has made the world a far better and more safer place"

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

I tend to think that the Atlas, Titan 1 & 2's, Minuteman's 1,2,3, SAC, the Posiedon, Polaris and Trident systems had far more to do with making the world a safer place. Mutually Assured Destruction is quite a motivating factor for NOT starting a world war. Catholic War doctrine has never been a factor in military history especially against those who couldn't give a rats ass if what they are doing is just or not. Either everybody plays by the same rules or there really are none and to this point. MAD kinda makes everybody play by one basic rule that even the most ruthless understand with brilliant clarity. The perfect relative peace? No, but one where the consequencies otherwise are too terrible to imagine.

W| 1.6.12 @ 3:48PM

A.J.
Catholic war theory or just war theory or any war theory is essentially KILL your enemies before they kill you. And if you are well armed, as you say, then they will not even think of attacking you if you make it clear you will destroy them.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:04PM

Yep, that is correct. Catholic War Doctrine hasn't done squat to keep anybody safe. More pontificating lunacy from a pacifist.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 7:22PM

A.J.

You are completely wrong.

The Catholic theory of Just War, proposed by Saint Augustine, and elaborated on by Saint Thomas Aquinas, is what differentiated Europe from the barbarians, like Attila the Hun and Genghis Kahn.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 8:23PM

And those Barbarians were stopped by military force, not doctrines. Also, it took Rome and its barbarian visigothic German allies to defeat Attila at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains and Atilla later died. Same with the Mongols, military defeat in key battles and the death of the Khan is what stopped them.

"Catholic War doctrine has never been a factor in military history especially against those who couldn't give a rats ass if what they are doing is just or not." Again, The great Khan and the Huns couldn't give a Rats @ss who was playing by whatever war doctrine rules. I didn't say what doctrines differentiated us from anybody. If you want to say that made Europe more "civilized" whatever.Those who opposed Atilla or the Mongols or the Avars, or the Sarmations, or the Alans or the German hords didn't spend a second studying and wondering if their Catholic War Doctrine supported the concept of resistence or not. Its a Nice concept, nobody payed any attention to, let alone the Catholic Church which justified the Crusades. Military history is and always has been about national or empiric or tribal self interests. British laws of wars inherited from Catholic doctrine didn't stop them from establishing their empire by force when necessary, their own self-interests did. So again, national Laws of war sound like nice civilized concepts and do create a moment of pause in some countries, but are nearly always trumped by national self-interest in reality. Europe enjoyed war as much as the barbarians they faced and by Europe I mean Rome or the Byzantines which simply bent their Rules of war to their empiric desires and needs. So by all means show me where I'm wrong.

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 4:04PM

A.J.,

"And those Barbarians were stopped by military force, not doctrines."

Straw man. I never claimed that Just War theory defeated any army.

I stated that it separated Europe from the barbarians, who almost always showed no mercy to civilians. Christian virtues were applied to the conduct of war, slowly, over many centuries. But, it did happen.

And, it saved many civilian lives, as well as the lives of soldiers. The treatment of P.O.W.s, civilian property (pillaging,) and what were legitimate targets, all came from Just War, developed by the Catholic Church.

This refutes your assertion that, "Catholic War Doctrine hasn't done squat to keep anybody safe."
It most certainly has kept untold millions safe, when it was practiced.

Unfortunately, modernity eroded the notions of a Just War, as the atrocities of WWI and WWII so ably attest.

A.J.| 1.7.12 @ 6:34PM

You haven't refuted anything. It seperated the Barbarians from Europe, Yeah so. You want civilian slaughters IN Europe by Civilized Europeons? Europe was NO different than the "Barbarians" they thought they were so much more Civilized than in warfare my friend. I can give you a list of Catholic atrocities in the early to middle ages that would make the so-called barbarians blush. Lets start here:

*Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to
convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

*Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church
taxes between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain
5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]

*Battle of Belgrad 1456 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]

*15th century Poland 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by
Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]

*16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and
civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable
beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common
of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of
the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother
of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what
sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte
off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche
side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused
"greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde
fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".

Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99,
225]

Crusades (1095-1291)

*First Crusade 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]

*Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96
thousands. [WW23] *9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish),
thousands respectively. [WW25-27]

*Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered
(number of slain unknown) [WW30]

*After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and
60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed.
[WW32-35]

Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the
enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their
bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.
[EC60]

*Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the
subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were
eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]

*Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish,
muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]

(In the words of one witness "there [in front of Solomon's temple]
was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood
of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people
marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of
gratitude")

*The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote "It was impossible to
look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay
fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the
blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies
and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of
all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the
victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous
sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that
within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels
perished." [TG79]

*Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following
summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of
decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]

*Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the
name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]

*Fourth crusade 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims
unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]

*Rest of Crusades in less detail until the fall of Akkon 1291
probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas
alone). [WW224]

Note All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics

*Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus
and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]

*Manichaean heresy a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice
birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics)
was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between
372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]

*Albigensians the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians.
[DO29]

The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely
sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept
roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]

Begin of violence on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single
pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209
destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including
Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends)
20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]

*Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed.
[WW181]

*subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half
the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were
exterminated. [WW183]

*After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search
and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the
stake 1324. [WW183] *Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy
alone), [WW183]

*Other heresies Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and
many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some
Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of
persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including
the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).

*Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220
burnings. [DO28]

*John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was
burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]

*University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.
[DO59]

*Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for
seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori
(Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches

*from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several
thousand.

*in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars
several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or
hanged. [WV]

*incomplete list of documented cases

The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars

*15th century Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]

*1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all
English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into
action). [DO31]

*1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million
rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
[DO31]

*1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope
Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]

*17th century Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader.
After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off
his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the
river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for
the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ...
to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and
crows'." [SH191]

*17th century Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany roughly
30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were
found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still
sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]

*17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant) at least 40% of
population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews

*Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by
Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.

*In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed
on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The
first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river
Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388.
[DA450]

*17. Council of Toledo 694 Jews were enslaved, their property
confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]

*The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who
would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]

*First Crusade Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000
total. Places Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons),
Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund,
Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations
Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]

*Second Crusade 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully,
Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]

*Third Crusade English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
*Fulda/Germany 1235 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]

*1257, 1267 Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton,
Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

*1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]

*1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51
towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]

*1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two
thousand) burned. [DO41]

*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly
burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians
in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

*1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]

*1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were
slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made
easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the
age of ten had been forced to wear.

*1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than
150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way
6/30/1492. [MM470-476]

*1648 Chmielnitzki massacres In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
[DO43]

Europe more civilized than Barbarians? Really?

"And, it saved many civilian lives, as well as the lives of soldiers. The treatment of P.O.W.s, civilian property (pillaging,) and what were legitimate targets, all came from Just War, developed by the Catholic Church."

This refutes your assertion that, "Catholic War Doctrine hasn't done squat to keep anybody safe."
It most certainly has kept untold millions safe, when it was practiced.

Tell me where it saved Millions, please give me examples where any doctrine saved anybody approaching "millions"

Your answer is your opinion not any examples
of anything. You just restated the same OPINION without any examples of anything. Who are the untold millions and give examples?

Now you want atrocities by military forces in Europe read:
By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare
or
The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again

This is fact, national, tribal, or governmental interests ALWAYS trump any Just War Doctrine., always will and always has. The Art of War
By Sun Tzu is the only war doctrine. If you think Europe was more civilized towards civilians in warfare and that differentiated them from barbarions? You ignorant of the history of warfare.

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 7:16PM

A.J.,

Reading comprehension does not seem to be your forte, huh? You are arguing against more straw men.

Perhaps you missed these statements of mine, in my last reply:

"Christian virtues were applied to the conduct of war, slowly, over many centuries. But, it did happen. [...] It most certainly has kept untold millions safe, when it was practiced."

I never claimed that there weren't men who claimed that they were Christian, and then committed atrocities. Of course there were.

I was rebutting your point that Just War Theory had no impact on the conduct of warfare. My examples were the Christianized Roman Empire's forces, as compared to the barbarians; and the eventual development of the Laws of War, as they were written down, in 1775, by the Continental Congress.

Have you ever read Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations? Although a Protestant, he continues the theme of Catholic Just War Theory in his book. Many of these principles were developed by the Christianization of ancient Roman jus gentium, i.e., law of nations.

To try to deny the contribution that Just War Theory has had on the Christian West, and, therefore, the whole world, shows a monumental ignorance of both the history of warfare and the world.

Mike D.| 1.8.12 @ 11:14AM

"You are arguing against more straw men."
Give me the examples, I can give you historic examples where Catholic Just War doctrine was ignored and led to the crusades, murder, slaughter and BARBARITY. C'mon, give me the examples where Catholic Just war doctrine saved millions of lives. We are still waiting with baited breath.

"Reading comprehension does not seem to be your forte, huh? "
Giving historic examples based on historical fact to back up your arguements doesn't seem to be yours. Huh? Don't play the I am smarter than you shit, you have not given me any historic factual examples about the millions saved other than your opinion.

"My examples were the Christianized Roman Empire's forces, as compared to the barbarians"
And I GAVE YOU FACTS not generalized examples that the Christinized Roman Empires forces and follow on Europeon military history and how they conducted war were no different that the barbarians that you seem to think conducted warfare in some more uncivilized unjust fashion. Again with facts to back it up. So your statement is refuted. The basis of the argument was a military comparison to Christian civilized Europe and the so-called barabarians and the treatment of civilians, and their property during the course of warfare as the difference between them due to the Catholic Doctrine of Just War. There were no differences, period, thanks again Hugo!

"Catholic Just War Theory " Thats all it is, relativistic theory and and is trumped by the more universal AND OLDER philosophical traditions such as the ethic of reciprocity, which in fact HAS played a major role in warfare and how it is conducted since ancients times.

"when it was practiced"
When was it practiced? how many lives did it save when it was? Your telling me millions, how did you or anybody elsecome to that number. Millions sounds good? Hell, why not 10's of millions or one million?

Hugo Grotius wrote:
"Fully convinced...that there is a COMMON(that would be interpreted as Non-Relatively religious) law among nations, which is valid alike for war and in war, I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon the subject.
Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even BARBARIC races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes"
Thank you HUGO for making my point,.His concepts of "international law" based on universal NATURAL law has had more influence on the coarse of laws and doctrines of warfare that any Religion based Just War doctrine which are relativistic to any religion.

"Just War Theory has had on the Christian West, and, therefore, the whole world"

Nice another nice generalization! The whole world? Really?More Catholic Pontificating from a religion that didn't practice it and nobody did else either. So that would include the Japanese, Germans, Incas, Aztecs, Napoleon, Hitler, Byzantines, Hannibal, Hindu, Muslims, Buddhists, Mamelukes, Asians, chinese(The Art of War by Sun Tzu which probably made one the biggest contributions to war doctrine and how it should be justified and conducted) I can quote Justification of war concepts from all major religions to back in the Ancients times including much from Greek Philosophy, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and ancient China and make a same generalized case they had as much or more influence in creating and influencing Warfare doctrines or laws of war.

In the case of POW"S, that goes back to the simple concept of reciprocity, don't kill mine and we don't kill yours. Natural Law.

If you think Europe was more civilized towards civilians in warfare and that differentiated them from barbarions? You implied that NOT ME. You implied that Barbarians fought in some uncivilized manner unlike Europeons which had the great Catholic law of Just warfare, I gave facts that refuted that completely and told you Catholics and Europeons were just as ruthless AND MERCILESS as the barbarians. Thanks Hugo, again!

"Christian virtues were applied to the conduct of war, slowly, over many centuries. But, it did happen." Natural common Law and concepts of reciprocity and balances of power have more to do with warfare and preventing it and starting it and who it saved than any Catholic document and as I stated and proved.

On the subject of treatment of prisoners, that goes much farther back than any Catholic Doctrine of just warfare:
In the Old Testament, the King of Israel prevents the slaying of the captured following the prophet, Elisha's admonition, to spare enemy prisoners: In answer to a question from the King, he said, "You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master.”

Islamic law indicates that "noncombatants who did not take part in fighting such as women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind, and insane" were not to be molested.[14] The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, proclaimed "Do not mutilate. Do not kill little children or old men or women. Do not cut off the heads of palm trees or burn them. Do not cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter livestock except for food."[15] Islamic jurists have held that a prisoner should not be killed as he "cannot be held responsible for mere acts of belligerency." [16] Islamic law did not spare all non-combatants. In the case of those who refused to convert to Islam or pay an alternative tax, Muslims "were allowed in principle to kill any one of them, combatants or noncombatants, provided they were not killed treacherously and with mutilation."

OR

more commonly: In the case of POW"S, that goes back to the simple concept of reciprocity, don't kill mine and we don't kill yours. Natural Law.

Catholic Just War Doctrine was just another reletivistic johhny-come-lately concept issued by a religion that didn't practice it. Earlier doctrines, and concepts of the same thing as practiced by earlier empires, civilizations, religions and races, again with examples to make the point.

One final thought:

During the Crusades the Muslims referred to the Franks(common name for Europeons) as the "barbarians" The Muslims were a much more advanced and civilized people at the time.

"shows a monumental ignorance of both the history of warfare and the world"

The usual typical reply when somebody doesn't have anything to base his arguement on.

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 4:29PM

Who are you, A.J. or Mike D.? Why do you post under two monikers? This is very disingenuous.

Also, your comment is rambling and incoherent. Try editing, next time.

You don't seem to want to take "Yes" for an answer. I have freely admitted that men claiming to be Christian have committed atrocities and not followed the precepts of Just War Theory. This was not the point that I refuted.

My point, again, is that Just War Theory, as begun by Saint Augustine and refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas, has had profound effects on how Europeans waged war amongst themselves, as well as others. This is historical fact, your anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Finally, you keep asking me to prove a negative. How can I provide figures for people who were never killed in the first place? To satisfy your curiosity, I wrote millions based on the fact that it is recorded that over a million were killed in the siege of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70.

So, based on all the cities that were not laid waste, as Jerusalem was, over the past 20 centuries, the number of civilians saved must be at least a million. This is why I qualified millions with the word "untold".

Feel free to reply, when you figure out who you are, and can make clear and cogent statements.

A.J.| 1.8.12 @ 6:17PM

First off, Mike D. is my brother who uses my tabletop and posts whatever he cares to post, Don't believe it, don't care. Our rule is I don't comment on his posts and he don't comment on mine.

First Point"

"Finally, you keep asking me to prove a negative. "How can I provide figures for people who were never killed in the first place? "

Then don't claim figures you can't provide facts to back up! Do you get it? Then the claim means NOTHING! Its your Opinion! Look up Opinion!

Second point:

To satisfy your curiosity, I wrote millions based on the fact that it is recorded that over a million were killed in the siege of Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. So, based on all the cities that were not laid waste, as Jerusalem was, over the past 20 centuries, the number of civilians saved must be at least a million. This is why I qualified millions with the word "untold".

First off, thats so convaluted I don't know where to start. what does the Siege of Jerusalem have to do with Catholic Just War Doctrine saving anybody now or then??? Catholic Just War doctrine didn't exist in 79AD. Incoherent point. Again, If you can't prove it then don't claim it, really simple concept, GET IT? Say it again with me SLOOOOOwly, can't prove it, don't claim it! Thats Proof? Seriously? I mean Seriously?

Third point:

"My point, again, is that Just War Theory, as begun by Saint Augustine and refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas, has had profound effects on how Europeans waged war amongst themselves, as well as others. This is historical fact, your anecdotal evidence to the contrary"

This is historical fact? Give them to me! WE are still waiting. I gave you plenty of facts to the contrary. Oh, I forgot, just you saying it is, IS proof which is typical of self rightous pontificators who have none to began with.
Again Say it SLOWLY, Can't prove it with fact, don't claim it! Warfare in Europe wasn't conducted ANY differently before or after the Doctrine in question, Again I gave Historical facts above, which you again have NOT provided. In fact I can make a case that Catholic Religious Just War Doctrine CAUSED more massacres and slaughters by justifying the crusades and other atrocities commited by Catholics

Fourth point:

"You don't seem to want to take "Yes" for an answer. I have freely admitted that men claiming to be Christian have committed atrocities and not followed the precepts of Just War Theory. This was not the point that I refuted"

No son, you haven't refuted anything yet. your point was that your precious Catholic doctrine of Just Warfare somehow differented Europeon Catholics from Barbarians in the conduct of warfare and I proved that to be complete fantasy by giving FACTS including as observed by a famous architect of Universal War Doctrine. Catholics slaughted civilians just as merciouslly as any barbarians. FACT!

So your massive rebuttal is:

"This is historical fact" but can't provide any of course , but YOU SAID IT so its true so makes it history

And

The Siege of Jerusalem..... well thats so ignorant of a reply its not worth going there again. YOU qualifying anything isn't historical fact its your OPINION. NOTHING ELSE. The whole world comment was just beyond historically ignorant.

So in Concluding:

Nobody cared a Rats Ass about The Catholic Doctrine of Just War when they started one as I stated.

You have NO historical basis for stating that Millions were saved, its YOUR Conjecture thats supposed to be taken for fact that would get laughed out of any debate of history.

So your a Catholic Pontificater who can prove anything. I accept that.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 12:09AM

Then you're just as rambling and incoherent as you brother.
You also can't seem to comprehend simple declarative sentences, written in plain English.

Your examples are anecdotal evidence. Do you know what anecdotal means? Go look it up. It is not probative. You'll have to look that up too.

And, finally, you get your history from wiki. So, why should I care what you think?

Christianity civilized barbaric Europe. It influenced the entire world, for many centuries, for the good. The decline of Christian influence on the world is what lead to the horrors of the 20th century, the bloodiest century on record.

A.J.| 1.9.12 @ 7:26AM

So now your down to:
You don't have anything, so you attack the person, last resort of a self rightous religious pontificator.

"Your examples are anecdotal evidence. Do you know what anecdotal means? Go look it up."
Reply:
Do you know what NO EVIDENCE is? Go look it up. Yes I know exactly what Anecdotal evidence is. Do you know what NOT providing ANY evidence is? Here I'll answer it for you, A LOSING ARGUEMENT!

Rambling and incoherent?
Your explanation of how you came to your UNTOLD Millions saved is about as Incoherent and convoluted and rambling as it comes. That logic and thought process is the definition of the word Incoherent.

Next time you tell somebody they are completely wrong, do yourself a favor and show up with something other than "Its true and factual because Nick says so"

W| 1.9.12 @ 11:43AM

If you want to base the argument on numbers of people killed, the consider that the communists killed over 100 million in the last century. We can all agree the commies are an atheist bunch. The Nazis were also an atheistic bunch, responsible for over 10 million. We can agree that the commies and nazis did not care for any religious theory about the conduct of war, correct?
You believe the Muslisms were more civilized than the Europeans? Who abolished slavery first? Who had governments that provided for voting, ownership of private property, voting by women, and freedom? It is the Christian Europe.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:24PM

Guys: what has saved Europe is the use of military power improved by Western standards of freedom of thought.

That Western Civilization is superior to Islamic Civ or other non-Western Civs is really beyond doubt, however. But the Power and the Civ, although related, are not the same.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 7:22PM

A.J.

You are completely wrong.

The Catholic theory of Just War, proposed by Saint Augustine, and elaborated on by Saint Thomas Aquinas, is what differentiated Europe from the barbarians, like Attila the Hun and Genghis Kahn.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 7:26PM

Oops! I don't know how that happened. And, I wasn't finished.

Just War theory is why the United States has had Laws of War since before the Declaration of Independence. We inherited this idea from English Laws of War, which were devopled, like all English law, when Britain was a Catholic nation.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 10:47PM

"when Britain was a Catholic nation."

And thank God for the Reformation, and Martin Luther and all of the Bible believing Christians who became the Martyrs of the Lord Jesus Christ because they stood on Scripture and caused men to be allowed to read the Bible on their own.

Murderous Popes who to this very day pretend to be Christ on Earth.. 'cept they can't get away with murder any more.

OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:29PM

F-ing bigot.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:38PM

For more information about the Reformation in England and how the murderous Popes tortured and killed Bible believing Christians, read this:

The Reformation in England
By J. H. Merle D'Aubigné
(Originally published in 1866)
Reprint by Banner of Truth Trust
1972

http://www.americanpresbyteria.....ngland.htm

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:33AM

... And then those bible-believing Christians, when they took power, murdered and persecuted Catholics in Ireland and England. It's what religious zealotry does.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:14AM

Bible believing Christians do not commit Murder, and I believe those were the Anglicans, who were ex-Catholics, and God gave neither group, neither the Murderous Catholics or the Anglicans to Murder ANYONE.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:42PM

Your problem, Margie, stems in part from a deep lack of historical knowledge. Cromwell and his band of Catholic hating and murdering Bible-thumping hordes, were decidedly not Anglican. They, like you, detested the Catholic tendencies in the Anglican church, its "worship" of Mary, it's priests and vestments and icons. They piously smashed up Cathedrals and Abbeys, slated Catholics where they found them, banned the Mass.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:11PM

I'm not the one with the problem, since I'm in Christ, and have been for almost 40 years, by the Grace of God, and believe every Word of God as written in the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments.

You have said you do NOT believe that the words in the Bible are God's inerrant Words, and that you believe Homosexuality isn't Sin, proving that you are an unbeliever, and not yet born of His Spirit.

My knowledge of History isn't therefore tainted with Liberalism, and I seek the truth.

What I said is correct and true.

Christians do not commit Murder. They may call themselves Christian, but they are not, just as the Murderous Popes and their minions were not Christian, but Murderers, and they continue teaching the same SICK doctrines that they taught at the time they killed true Christians in the Name of God.

They have never repented.
And who mentioned anything about Cromwell?

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 4:33PM

Margie,

"Christians do not commit Murder."

Were the Puritans Christian? They wrongly put people to death for witchcraft.

I'm still waiting for those answers to my three very simple questions, by the way.
Do infants sin against Almighty God, or not?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:06PM

Sorry, but your continued attempt at putting the focus elsewhere is a joke.

The Papists killed millions of Christians and for six centuries.

They still teach the same false teachings as they did then that led to them committing the murders, they have NEVER repented of them.

And this fact is borne out by the utter contempt towards any Christian who has the gall to speak the truth concerning this cult of Mary.

Sorry, but the Pope is a fraud who pretends to be Christ on Earth, he needs to repent of it or he'll perish.

He also needs to repent of all the false and unbiblical teachings he teaches.

And, a tree is known by its fruit: Homosexual "Priests" and the protecting of them for centuries.

Sorry, but your attempt at serial deflecting from the reality that is this Apostate cult is a major major fail.

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 7:26PM

Margie,

"Sorry, but the Pope is a fraud who pretends to be Christ on Earth, he needs to repent of it or he'll perish."

This is not true. Why do you keep repeating it? The Holy Father does not claim to be "Christ on Earth". The Pope is Christ's Vicar, i.e., Christ's Prime Minister.

Christ reigns as King of Kings, in Heaven. The Pope is His Prime Minister, here, on earth. Whatever he binds is bound in Heaven, and whatever he looses is loosed in Heaven. We have been over this before.

Now, where are those answers to my three very simple questions? Do infants sin against Almighty God, or not?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:35PM

"The Pope is His Prime Minister, here, on earth. Whatever he binds is bound in Heaven, and whatever he looses is loosed in Heaven. We have been over this before."

And it is a lie.
He is NOT any such thing, it is entirely unbiblical, as is the entire phony teaching of "Papal succession".

Read about the history of the Apostate and ungodly Papists here:

OF THE EVIL SUCCESSION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, CONSISTING ONLY IN THE SUCCESSION OF THE PERSONS, AND NOT OF THE DOCTRINE

Here is to be considered the great error of the Romanists, when they without regarding the true succession of the doctrine build on, and parade the succession of the persons, who either from the beginning of the world, or from the time of the apostles have existed throughout, as they pretend up to the present time; surely a very insignificant matter!*
For, if they reckon from the beginning of the world, we have shown, that Cain, who was a murderer, has had his successors as well as Abel, who was slain for the sake of his faith** and godliness.

*"Trust ye not in lying words," saith the Lord,"saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these" (Jer. 7:4).
*"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11:4). And also, if they reckon from the time of the apostles, we have demonstrated that at that time already there were many apostates, yea, adversaries of the Christian religion and the true worship of God; and that more have followed, according to the prophecies and predictions which the holy apostles uttered and left to posterity.
Hence it follows, that neither the antiquity, nor the long or great succession of persons, can assure the truth of any religion or church, since the evil is as ancient as the good, and the erring spirits and evildoers have had, and still have, as great a succession as the true believers and good; unless the antiquity, and the succession of persons be accompanied with the divine truth and piety possessed by the upright ancients in the beginning.
OBJECTION OF THE PAPISTS, BY MEANS OF THREE PASSAGES

But, in order to maintain the aforementioned succession, the Papists are accustomed to say, that they do not reckon the same from the antiquity of some erring spirits who were before, in, or after the time of the apostles; but from the church of Christ itself, and from Peter, whom they styled the prince of the apostles, upon whom Christ Himself, as they asserted, wished to build His church. Bell. lib. I. de pont Rom. cap. 10. Quansuy ex.
To this they add as a second argument, that to him and no other, were given, by Christ, the keys of heaven, to open or to close the same according to his pleasure.
And, thirdly, that the Lord thrice commanded him-more than the other apostles-to feed His flock, that is, His church.
Moreover, that he occupied the Roman throne, and that the popes succeeded him therein.
To prove this supremacy of Peter, and, consequently, the succession of the popes in his place, they have, for a long time already, misused three passages of holy Scripture, namely Matt. 16:18, 19; and John 21:15-17; to which we will reply in the following.
REPLY TO THE FIRST PASSAGE

Matt. 16:18, the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build my church."
The error of the Romanists consists in this, that they misinterpret the word petra, as though thereby was meant the apostle Peter; but this is a great and palpable error. For the Lord there plainly distinguishes between the name Petros (Peter) and the word petra (rock); saying immediately before, "Thou art Peter," but afterwards, "and upon this rock;" upon which follows, "I will build my church;" so that the Lord does not promise there, to build His church upon Peter, but upon the rock; which he plainly mentions.
Now it will depend upon the true meaninb who and what is to be understood by this rock. Some maintain the first mentioned meaning, which

Page 47
we have refuted just now, namely, that Peter himself is meant thereby; for which purpose they misapply the passage John 1:42, where this apostle is called Cephas,* which, in their opinion, signifies a foundation stone; but this is also an error.
It is true that, according to the explanation of orientalists, those versed in oriental languages, by this word there is to be understood a stone; but what kind of a stone? Not a foundation stone, but a piece, corner, or chip of a stone, upon which no building could ever be founded. The word Cephas, they say, is derived from the Hebrew word Keph, which with them means a corner or edge of a stone; while, on the other hand, the rocks or foundation stones are designated by the.name Sela or Zur ** according to Deut. 32:13. Thus Peter is indeed called a stone in holy Scripture, yet not a foundation stone, but only such a one as is generally built upon a foundation. Christ is properly the foundation stone, as Peter himself declares, when he calls Christ the living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious (I Pet. 2:4); whereupon he adduces the words of the Prophet Isaiah saying, "Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him" (that is built, upon him through faith)"shall not be confounded." I Pet. 2:6 from Isa. 28:16. Therefore he admonishes the believers, to build themselves, as living stones, to a spiritual house, upon the foundation which is laid-Christ. Verse 5.
Paul confirms this, when he says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 3:11). In another place he calls Him the foundation of the apostles and prophets, etc. (namely, upon whom the apostles and pr phets themselves were built up, and upon whom they, through their doctrine, built up others also.); for he adds, "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph. 2:20-22) .
It is not inconsistent with this, that the twelve apostles, of whom Peter was one, are called twelve foundation stones, *** upon which, as John says, the city of God, that descended from heaven, was built. Rev. 21:14. For, even if it were admitted that by

* And he (Andrew) brought him (Simon Peter) to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou stu be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. John 1:42.
* He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields: and he made him to suck honey out of the"Sela" rock, and oil out of the"Zur" flinty rock. Deut. 32:13.
** The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev.21:14). In the first place it is questionable (even if it be admitted that by this description of the city of God we are to understand the church of God) whether thereby is meant the church of God as it is here on earth, or the glorified church of God, as it will be afterwards in heaven t for only the former, and not he latter, is to be considered here. In the second place, it is certain that the name"foundation stone" is ascribed here not to Peter alone, but to all the twelve apostles; hence he is here called a foundation not any more than any of the others. he words, city of God, in this place, there is to be understood the church of God here on earth, this would only prove, that Peter, as well as the other apostles, was one of the twelve foundation stones of the church of Christ; which by no means confirms the proposed objection, that Peter alone is the foundation stone, or foundaition, of the church.
Again, the word "foundation stones" here does not signify the foundation itself, since, properly speaking, in nature, the foundation, as the ground or bottom of a building, is something different from the stones built upon it, which are called foundation stones; for, upon the ground or bottom the foundation stones are laid, and upon the foundation stones the building; so that the ground of foundation must support both, the foundation stones and the building. Thus, Christ is the ground, bottom, or foundation of His church; the apostles, through their doctrine, are the foundation stones; and. the church is the building erected upon these foundation stones and the foundation. It stands fast, therefore, that they err, who make Peter the only foundation of the church of Christ, and that, consequently the building which they erect thereon, is erroneous and false *
REPLY TO THE SECOND PASSAGE

The second passage is taken from Matt. 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
But this does not in the least tend to prove that church discipline or the power of expelling from, and readmitting unto the church, was given, among the apostles, to Peter alone, and to no other of the twelve; for in verse 13 it is written, "When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?" Whereupon it is related, that Peter (in the name of all) answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Then follows, verse 19, "I will give unto thee the keys," etc., which promise, though addressed specially to Peter, extended to all the apostles in general, since the Lord did not ask Peter alone; but the whole of them collectively; upon which, when he (Peter) had answered in the name of all, followed the above mentioned promise.
This is explained still further by the holy evangelist John, who says, chap. 20:19, 22, 23, that Christ, after His resurrection, standing in the midst of His disciples, breathed on them all, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," adding, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained;" which words are of equal impor-

* James, Cephas" (or Peter),"and John, who seemed to be pillars," etc. Gal. 2:9. Here James is mentioned before Cephas (or Peter). Again, John and James are called pillars as well as Cephas (or Peter), in order to show that the worthiness or the ministry of one was not more than that of the other, and that they, without distinction, were all equal therein.
Page 48
tance with those just quoted from Matthew, concerning the giving of the keys.
Moreover, that the church also has received this power, is expressed in words not obscure at all in Matt. 18:17, 18: If he (the sinner) neglect to hear ,the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye (understand, according to the sentence of the church, which is here spoken of) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Who doubts that these are the express words which were previously addressed to Peter, but, of course, are intended for all the apostles, and here for the whole church?
We see that the Corinthian church, at the time of Paul, possessed the right of expelling and readmitting, called binding and loosing; for, touching the expulsion of the sinner, it was said to them, "Purge out therefore the old leaven" (namely, the obstinate sinner), etc. I Cor. 5:7. Again, "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person." Verse 13.
Concerning the readmittance of the one who manifested penitence, they are commanded, "Sufficient to such a man (namely, who repents of his sins) is this punishment (that is, the expulsion from the church) which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow" (II Cor. 2:6,7).
Besides, that this power of binding and loosing was not given to Peter alone, but to all the apostles, and also to the church, it is entirely different in its nature from that of which the pope of Rome as the imaginary successor of Peter boasts. For the power of which Christ spoke, must be limited by the rule of His Word, Matt. 7:24, 26; Gal. 1:6-8; while on the contrary the power of which the pope boasts is unlimited, has no rule, and extends as far as his pleasure. Bald. in cap. Eccles. Also, dirt. 40. cap. S. Papae, etc.
It follows then, that to the pope is attributed wrongfully a power which was not given to Peter himself; moreover, that the power which was given him, was common to all the apostles, and also to the church.
REPLY TO THE THIRD PASSAGE

The third passage (or argument) is taken from John 21:15-17, where-the Lord asked Peter three times whether he loved Him, and Peter answered each time, "Yea, Lord, I love thee;" to which the Lord replied, three times, "Feed my lambs;""Watch my sheep," etc.
Some among the papists, in order to maintain the supremacy of Peter and, consequently, that of the popes of Rome, have so strained these words, that a certain celebrated author among them did not hesitate to write, that Peter is here appointed a ruler, watchman, and pastor, not only over the church, but over the apostles themselves. Bell. lib. 1. de Pont. Rom. cap. 14 & 15. 16. Second S. belt. etc.
But herein they do violence to the text, since various arguments from the holy Scriptures overthrow this view. For, in the first place, it is certain, that at that time Peter had greatly and grievously gone astray, more than any of the other apostles; since he, contrary to warning and his own solemn promise, had so faithlessly denied, yea, entirely forsaken, the Lord; hence, there is no probability that the Lord exalted him above all the others, and appointed him ruler over them; which would be altogether incompatible with the justice of Christ, and the nature of the case.
In the second place it would not accord with what the Lord had taught His apostles in general, on a previous occasion, when strife had arisen among them, as to which of them, after His departure, should be the greatest; saying, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the youngest; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve" (Luke 22:25, 26) . Again, "Neither be ye called masters
for one is your Master, even Christ" (Matt. 23:8, 10).
In the third place, if we examine the proposed argument, we shall find, that neither the threefold question of the Lord: Lovest thou me? nor His threefold injunction, "Feed, or watch, my lambs, and sheep," was directed to Peter any more than to the other apostles.
For, as regards the question, Lovest thou me? what does it signify more than that Peter should examine himself, whether he did love Christ? Very well. What, then, had Peter more than any of the other apostles? or than Paul afterwards had? who said, "For I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38, 3,9). Again, "The love of Christ constraineth us;" etc. II Cor. 5:14. Yea, every Christian in particular, and all in general, are bound to this love, which is so necessary, that it is written, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha" (I Cor. 16:22) .
Concerning the injunction, Watch, or feed, my lambs and sheep, this is also enjoined upon all true teachers."Take heed therefore," says Paul to the elders of the church at Ephesus,"unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28) .
Peter, moreover, has, in this respect, not placed himself above, but beside his fellow ministers, when he, exhorting them says, "The elders which

Page 49
are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you," etc. (I Pet. 5:1, 2).
This is further confirmed by the fact, that the Lord did not command Peter only, but all the apostles in general, to go into all the world, to preach and baptize the believers. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16.
Again, He said to them all, "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
It follows therefore, that in the matter of watching over, .and feeding, the sheep of Christ, that is, in preaching the holy Gospel, and taking care of the church of Christ, Peter possessed no more authority, power, and distinction than the other apostles and apostolic teachers.
It now remains to give a solution, why the Lord thrice asked Peter alone, and none of the others, whether he loved Him, and thrice commanded him to feed His sheep.
To this we reply: since Peter only a short time before had thrice forsaken the Lord, it was not more than right, that he should also confess thrice that he loved Him whom he had forsaken; and that, therefore, this question should be put to him three times.
Besides, since Peter, by his denial had entirely abandoned, or, at least, had become totally unworthy of his office of teaching and feeding the church of Christ, none of the other apostles would, under any consideration, have recognized or received him therein; hence it was necessary, that the Lord Himself should earnestly, yea thrice, charge him with it, so that no one might come to doubt the worthiness of his person (since he was now converted), or the validity of his office.
Thence follows again the absurdity of those who make the matter in question say more than the Lord Himself has done: namely, that Peter hereby was not reinstated into his office, which he had abandoned; but that he was appointed head of the whole church, yea, even over all the other apostles; as can be seen in lib. 1. de pont. Rom. cap. 11. Bellorm.
THE GROUNDLESSNESS [OF THE ALLEGATIONS] OF THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DEDUCE THE ROMAN SUCCESSION FROM PETER THE HOLY APOSTLE, AND WHEREIN THIS CONSISTS

Besides that the three proposed passages are of no use to the papists in proving the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles and the whole Christian church, there follow various reasons and circumstances which show clearly, that the succession of the popes, which they would deduce from Peter, cannot stand, but is unfounded and untrue.
For, to come to the point, it cannot be shown, that Peter was ever at Rome, (where the seat of the pope is placed), except at the close of his life, and then he was not received as pope, but was put to death as a martyr, with Paul, his fellow apostle, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, as we have circumstantially shown in the History of the Holy Martyrs,of the year 69 A. D. Also, Egesi¢p. Hist. van de verstoring Jerusalem, 3. Bock, 2 cap. Also, W. Band. Apopth. Christian, lib. I. ex Hieron. de vitis illustribus. Johan. Strac. in festo Johan. Evang, etc.
Eusebius quotes from Dionysius, a teacher of the church at Corinth, concerning the coming of Paul and Peter to Rome, as also concerning their preaching, which was the cause of their death, these words: They (namely Paul and Peter) were both together in our congregation at Corinth, teaching (from) there (on) throughout all Italy; they taught also in this city (namely, Rome, of which he had first spoken); where they both were crowned martyrs at the same time. Euseb. Pamph. Chron. Eccl. Edition of 1,588 lib. 2. cap. z,5.
He speaks of Peter's coming to, and preaching at, Rome, even as if having taken place at the close of his life; and although he puts Paul's coming and preaching in the same time, Paul's coming to this city, nevertheless, happened much earlier than the coming of Peter, which took place shortly before their death; in which time both together preached the holy Gospel in that city.
That Paul was there much earlier and longer, appears from all the circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was brought to Rome, and, having arrived there,"dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." Here the account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything further of Peter. See Acts 28:30, 31.
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS FROM THE HOLY SCRIP TURES, SHOWING THAT PETER WAS NOT AT ROME DURING THE TIME PAUL WAS THERE, EXCEPT (AS HAS BEEN EX PLAINED ABOVE) AT THE CLOSE OF HIS LIFE:

Read more here:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 11:30PM

Margie,

"And it is a lie."

No, it is straight from the Bible. So is Apostolic Succession:

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands [...]." - 2 Timothy 1:6

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2

There it is, in black & white. It's clear as crystal, for those who want to see.
God Bless!

W| 1.8.12 @ 12:54PM

Margie's problem is that she is a stupid, ignorant bigot. Keep that in mind and you will understand all her comments.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 3:36PM

"Margie's problem is that she is a stupid, ignorant bigot."

No, I'm too smart to believe that the "Pope" is God's man on Earth and other such blasphemies.

You're too stupid dishonest to learn and serve the Truth.

That makes you both a liar AND a flaming hypocrite.

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 4:08PM

"And thank God for the Reformation, and Martin Luther [...]."

This is how Margie brings Luther out from under the bus, to suit her need to attack the Catholic Church.

When asked about what Luther actually taught, she will throw him right back under the bus, along with Calvin and the Anabaptists.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:00PM

"This is how Margie brings Luther out from under the bus, to suit her need to attack the Catholic Church."

Heh, and there was Nick over in the other thread hypocritically speaking to me about how I "treat" others.

I see you're still at it. Being a liar, that is.
But somehow it's OK for you to do.. because you're Catholic??

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 7:33PM

Margie,

"Heh, and there was Nick over in the other thread hypocritically speaking to me about how I "treat" others."

How am I a hypocrite? I never call you names or use vile curse words against you. I never call you a liar or a scumbag, as you repeatedly do.

I use sarcasm to make my points. This is not an attack, which is how you always seem to take it. I can't control how you take my comments. If you are unsure of what I really mean, then just ask me, and I will try to clarify. Don't always assume that I have malicious intent, okay?
God Bless!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:37PM

Nick,

And I will make my points as I wish, according to the Truth that is in Scripture.

That which you care nothing for, and are as deceitful as they come.

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 11:35PM

Margie,

"And I will make my points as I wish, according to the Truth that is in Scripture."

I have no problem with you making your points. It is the vile insults and name calling that is the problem.
I'm sorry, but, you just can't call someone a scumbag in a loving way.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 12:28AM

You want to keep bringing that up? I asked you if you'd forgive me for that, and you said you did.. so may I be permitted to repent or will you be continually holding it against me.

But I ask you~ what do you call someone who continually lies in your face with the most vile accusations??

And why is it that you and your pals aren't held to the same standard?? Hmmm??

Oh, well. I'll use the word VILE SNAKE in the future, is that OK with you??

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 4:38PM

Margie,

"You want to keep bringing that up?"

I only brought it up again because you stated that you intend to make your points as you wish. I still forgive you. I was just reminding you of how you make your points, sometimes.

So, no, I'm not holding this against you.

"But I ask you~ what do you call someone who continually lies in your face with the most vile accusations??"

But, I ask you, when have I ever done this?

"And why is it that you and your pals aren't held to the same standard?? Hmmm??"

How many times have I defended you, here, at AmSpec? Even against my fellow Catholics, following the example of John II? I can only speak for myself. I can't be held responsible for the fights you have with others, can I?

My reply, in the other thread, might answer the rest of your questions. I hope.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:46PM

"I'm sorry, but, you just can't call someone a scumbag in a loving way.
God Bless!"

Heh, right, Nick.
But you CAN call someone a heretic in a loving way, right, Pope worshipper?

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 4:39PM

Margie,

"But you CAN call someone a heretic in a loving way, right, Pope worshipper [sic]?"

When have I ever called you a heretic?

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 5:53PM

Aren't you a Pope worshipper?
Do you not reject the Scriptures for the words of the Popes and the ungodly Vatican?

You slander the Word of God, Nick. And that's the truth.

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 11:57PM

Margie,

"Aren't you a Pope worshipper [sic]?"

NOOOOOOOO! How can I be any more clearer on this subject?
I worship NO man, or woman. I worship the One, True God. I worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. That's it. No One else.

"Do you not reject the Scriptures for the words of the Popes and the ungodly Vatican?"

Again, no, I don't. Who, besides you, quotes more Scripture verses than I do?

"You slander the Word of God, Nick. And that's the truth."

Slander concerns oral defamation and calumny. Libel concerns written defamation. And, I do neither. I praise the Word of God and try to share it as much as I am able.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:02PM

p.s. Speaking the truth about the Apostate Catholic church's false and unbiblical teachings isn't "attacking", it's speaking the truth.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.8.12 @ 11:57AM

You're still a full of shit biggot who's putrid soul is every bit as rotten as Clint & Jack's. You are an apostate Christian who denies the Holy Trinity. You're a pompous bitch who declares herself more pious than everyone else when all you probably REALLY are is some clapped out ex-stripper who learned how to read @ 19 & now claims to a a Biblical expert.

You're a joke Marge. Deal with it. Embrace your apostasty.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:23PM

The Con Artist Chef is back again today spewing his filthy lying vile mouth.

Sorry Con Artist Chef, but YOU'RE the one here who actually REJECTS the God of the Bible, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, remember????

That makes you a liar AND a hypocrite!

You are trash, and your mouth is trash.
And God will"deal" with you the way HE SAYS HE DOES with ALL a
liars and anti-Christs:

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 2:22.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

You're a little punk and a lying coward who sits behind his computer trashing Christians, and making himself judge over them.

You are NOTHING, kiddo.
Deal with it.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:44PM

Oh, and by the way, lying little freak:

I speak the TRUTH.
Both about the CULT of Catholicism, it's vile murderous history, and about the Word of God.

You, on the other hand are a flaming filthy, disgusting little hypocrite who cannot even see his hypocrisy, an unbelieving Jew who has absolutely no authority to judge ME or ANY CHRISTIAN.

A.J.| 1.8.12 @ 2:03PM

"We inherited this idea from English Laws of War, which were devopled, like all English law, when Britain was a Catholic nation"

Bullshit,

Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, and the legal developments which occurred before the 7th century AD — when the Roman–Byzantine state adopted Greek as the language of government. The development of Roman law comprises more than a thousand years of jurisprudence — from the TWELVE TABLES (c. 439 BC) to the Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529) ordered by Emperor Justinian I. This Roman law, the Justinian Code, was effective in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire (331–1453), and also served as a basis for legal practice in continental Europe, as well as in Ethiopia, and most former colonies of European nations, including Latin America.

Historically, "Roman law" also denotes the legal system applied in most of Western Europe, until the end of the 18th century. In Germany, Roman law practice remained longer, having been the Holy Roman Empire (963–1806); thus the great influence upon the civil law systems in Europe. Moreover, the English and North American Common law also were influenced by Roman law, notably in the Latinate legal glossary — stare decisis, culpa in contrahendo, pacta sunt servanda.[1] In contrast, Eastern Europe, though influenced by the Byzantine Empire, was not much influenced by the jurisprudence of the Corpus Juris Civilis; however, they did accept the Roman influence of the Farmer's Law.

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 4:44PM

A.J.,

Or is it Mike D.? Do you change your name on the hour?

And, now I see your problem. You get your history from wiki!
No wonder you are so confused.

Try cracking a book sometime, and don't copy 'n paste from fact-challenged websites, okay?

A.J.| 1.9.12 @ 7:38AM

So thats your answer to the historically ignorant statement:

"We inherited this idea from English Laws of War, which were devopled, like all English law, when Britain was a Catholic nation"

A first year Law student would piss his pants laughing at that idiocy. Roman law originated the institution of law in western europe, the Catholic church had virtually nothing to do with any of it and in most cases retarded it. Oh, and by the way, if you don't agree, then provide the facts and evidence. Check your own bookshelf, and dispose of the volume "The Catholic church is right about everything" by Nick.

Nick| 1.9.12 @ 2:27PM

"Check your own bookshelf, and dispose of the volume "The Catholic church is right about everything" by Nick."

I'll do that, just as soon as you stop getting your history from wiki, huffpo, and anti-Catholic.com, okay?

The Catholic Church is right about everything, by the way.
Everything concerning Faith and morals, that is.

A.J.| 1.16.12 @ 4:38PM

Next time you show up with the statement, "your completely wrong", show up with more than your dick in your hands. In regards to Wiki, if there is something wrong with it then by all means refute it. But then again, your not real good at that are you?

You Catholics don't handle the dirty, bloody history of your church very well do you? Maybe you better take a good hard look at it before you elect it the savior of mankind in any way, shape or form. As far as it being right about everything, thats what I figured I was debating with, another pontificating, self-rightous religious lunatic with the "I say it is therefore it is" mentality.

A.J.| 1.8.12 @ 2:05PM

"We inherited this idea from English Laws of War, which were devopled, like all English law, when Britain was a Catholic nation"

Serioiusly? Bullshit,

Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, and the legal developments which occurred before the 7th century AD — when the Roman–Byzantine state adopted Greek as the language of government. The development of Roman law comprises more than a thousand years of jurisprudence — from the TWELVE TABLES (c. 439 BC) to the Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529) ordered by Emperor Justinian I. This Roman law, the Justinian Code, was effective in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire (331–1453), and also served as a basis for legal practice in continental Europe, as well as in Ethiopia, and most former colonies of European nations, including Latin America.

Historically, "Roman law" also denotes the legal system applied in most of Western Europe, until the end of the 18th century. In Germany, Roman law practice remained longer, having been the Holy Roman Empire (963–1806); thus the great influence upon the civil law systems in Europe. Moreover, the English and North American Common law also were influenced by Roman law, notably in the Latinate legal glossary — stare decisis, culpa in contrahendo, pacta sunt servanda.[1] In contrast, Eastern Europe, though influenced by the Byzantine Empire, was not much influenced by the jurisprudence of the Corpus Juris Civilis; however, they did accept the Roman influence of the Farmer's Law.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:48PM

How dare you speak out against the lies of Catholicism!
Where are the filthy Pope worshippers to admonish and castigate you????

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 10:02AM

"I have been a pro-life activist for decades"

That should have read, "I have been a pro-life activist for decades unless they live in Israel".

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:08AM

Yep. In Israel's case, he's a fan of retroactive abortion.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 12:47PM

Yep. I think one can safely assume that the best part of Jack's dad ended up as a stain on the mattress.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 1:04PM

I wish the Jews nothing but peace and goodwill. Israel will have those when it learns how to treat it's neighbors with love and respect and quits killing them, stealing from them and threatening them with nuclear extiction, as so many couch warriors here want to do. It would be nice if they paid several hundred billion in reparations, for all the murder, theft, an torture of the last 63 years. have a peaceful Sabbath. Shalom.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:23PM

The "Proud 4-Fer" calls us "couch warriors." Oh, the STAGGERING irony. This is almost as funny as your claim to wish Jews "peace & goodwill."

And why should they pay reparations to the people who've been at war with them since their country came into being & way before that? I suppose you're ready to cough up some dough to the black man for "reparations" as well. You being white & all, I'm sure someone in your family got over on the black man, right?

Even though I think you're a putz, Jack, I don't really believe that. That's why your call for Israel to pay "reparations" is as asinine as those who call for American white folks to pay reparations for slavery.

Mike D.| 1.6.12 @ 1:53PM

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 1:04PM
"I wish the Jews nothing but peace and goodwill."

Jack in Wi.| 9.10.11 @ 10:04AM
Whatever good INDIVIDUAL Jews have done in the world pails in comparission to the bad of the last 200 years. Atheism, communism, Socialism, Nuclear Weapons, expansionist Zionism, nuclear blackmail and abortion.

LOL!

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 2:18PM

Jack misses the point wherein Gaza was given to its residents. Had they acted properly it could have become the Hong Kong or Monaco of the eastern Med. Instead they chose to start lobbing missles into Israel. Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 2:39PM

The most ironic part of Israel's ceeding of Gaza was that Gaza once had HUGE greenhouses that, when they were at their peak production, accounted for 12% of ALL produce grown in Israel. Those greenhouses were amongst the first things the Hamas thugs destroyed.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 7:34PM

What would you know about anything Catholic?

You're a Hitler-defender and spout neo-nazi propaganda.
RuPaul isn't fit to be on the same stage as Rich Santorum.

Nick| 1.6.12 @ 7:36PM

This, of course, was addressed to Jack-boot from Wi., der schweinehund fuhrer.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:27PM

Except for the 5 million you wish to kill. Thanks Jack, you fudge-PACKER. The pack is going down!

Mike Hawk| 1.6.12 @ 6:53AM

Jack, you are a (__!__). STFU already. You are full of flatulence gas.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 7:25AM

Ricky Santorum Is A Big Government Statist.

His Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Hurts Him With We,Tea Party Patriots.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads Into The East Coast.

Jack in Wi.| 1.6.12 @ 7:33AM

Clint: Nobody likes Santorum. Even the fools here haven't got much to say in his favor. He is the neocons bottom of the barrel. His main purpose has always been to split the conservative vote. Why would they not back Romney? He is loves war and big government just like the neocns do. The answer is that Romney is their candidate. Santorum is just their stalking horse.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 7:49AM

Yeah Jack, Santorum Is Their" Watch My Hand" Attention Diversion.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges , Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 8:57AM

Aw, look. Ain't y'all cute? Y'all gonna cuddle & read the "Turner Diaries" later?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:29AM

The 4-F'er Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job Serves Up Another Crap Sandwich.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:36AM

And you eat it right up. You must've gotten a taste for crap from all the rimjobbing of Paul you do every day.

Chef chokes Clint with munster Kobe cheeseburger.

The Pee Party Rebellion of One may be on the east coast, but its gonna flame out there in a more spectacular fashion than it did in Iowa. That bronze still tastes good, doesn't it, Clint?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:40AM

Eat This Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job.

" An interesting article at Business Insider notes that Paul may have actually won Iowa after the caucuses were over:

That's because Paul's massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

That's because Iowa's Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

"Part of what we've been training the Ron Paul people to do is not to leave after the vote," Dan Godzich, a senior campaign advisor, told BI. "Stay and get elected to the conventions and get us those delegates."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Now On The East Coast.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:48AM

This is the 9 millionth time you've posted the same thing. I've already "eaten" it & pooped it out. And its still poop.

Maybe you need to find some new material for your cut & paste files. The stuff you have now is old. We all know that you HAVE to stick to your robo posts. This is because when you write freehand, you sound even MORE stupid, if that's even possible.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:35PM

Heres our boy Clint from Philly, we done got ourselves a dork here fellas:

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 5:51PM

I KNEW he was some Jersey Shore wannabe when he gloated about fake baking yesterday. I'll bet he "manscapes" too. And the funny thing is, this rube probably buys shirts off the Wal Mart sale rack & tries to pass them off as Armani.

So he's a low rent Jersey Shore wannabe poser who lies about having a WWII vet for a father. Gee, color me shocked!

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:28PM

Well, after they lose, they won't be votin'.

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 12:23PM

tHe RuPaUl ReBeLlIoN iS gOnNa GeT sToMpEd On ThE eAsT cOaSt.

W| 1.6.12 @ 8:55AM

25% of the Iowa Rep caucus voters like Santorum, ant Pa elected him twice to the Senate, and once to the House.
You will not vote for any Rep unless it is Ron Paul. Paul will not be the nominee. So you will be writing every day to criticize Santorum and Romney and anybody who is not Paul.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:32AM

And when Paul's NOT the nominee, these perpetual children (not unlike the liberals they claim to decry) will do the political equivalent of taking the football & going home. They'll either go 3rd party, should Paul choose that direction, or they'll stay home/write in their dog's name. Either way, they'll be casting a default vote for Obama. And they'll be proud of it. While they kvetch all through the next 4 years, should that happen & Obama wins.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 10:21AM

Quite a conversation this morning with Clint and Jack on board. Waste of time really.

Does NH really have any significance at all? I think not for two reasons: 1. The state will not deliver electoral votes to the GOP nominee and 2. the voters are mostly left or libertarian in their views which skews the candidate preference away from the mainstream and Conservative blocs of the GOP.

Comong up are staets which actually will decide the election SC, FLA, and so on. States without a GOP base should have little say in selecting the nominee.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:39AM

Al Adab:

While I agree that trying to present a point to Jackboot Jack & Robopost Clint is akin to speaking to a lamp post, its just TOO fun to NOT play with our official Am Spec chew toys.

As for the significance of NH, I'll agree with you about halfway. While NH's demographics ARE, indeed, what you say they are, its still a good indicator for how well a candidate will do in a national election. Unfortunately, the rest of the country isn't as conservative as the states in Dixie. The Dixie primaries will be the best indicator of who the best CONSERVATIVE in the field really is.

On a personal note, having now lived in the Commie-Wealth of PA for almost 10 years now, I can say that I miss Tennessee more than ever. Even though I think the worm is starting to turn to the right in PA, given the resounding Republican victories in the statewide & national elections of 2010, this is still a disgustingly union heavy state. And because of this, Dems are still QUITE the force to be reckoned with here.

In Tennessee, unless you live in the actual city limits of Memphis, there are DAMN few unionistas & liberal whackjob politicians. The people of the South just don't stomach them or their policies.

W| 1.6.12 @ 11:01AM

Al Adav and Con Chef,
I don't know how Iowa and New Hampshire got to be the deciders for the nominees of both parties other that they are first. Maybe the candidates should all skip Iowa and NH. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia should all move their primaries to bump off Iowa and NH.

In "Game Change," the book about the 2008 election, Obama told everyone if he won Iowa he would be the nominee. He won Iowa. Hillary spent 29 million for 70,000 votes, or $414 per vote. It seems whoever wins Iowa and NH is perceived as a "winner" and gets the big money contributions to run the primaries in S.Carolina, Florida, etc.

The key is the money. Whoever wins Iowa and NH gets the money. Iowa is not representative of the country. On the Dem side, it is very liberal and anti war, thus Obama beat Hillary. On the Rep side, is is very conservative and evangelical, thus Huckabee and Santorum.
Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina are more representative of the nation.

W| 1.6.12 @ 11:02AM

sorry Al, hit the v instead of b, ADAB!

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:16PM

W: Changes the meaning. No problem.

Both of you have lots to contribute to the discussion and as I am unfamiliar with the East (US) your insights are valuable.

I think we are paying too much attention to which candidate can compete in Blue States. It erally does not matter. To win we must capture FLA, VA, Ohio and NC in addition to the states McCain won. That is where the election will be decided. How well someone might run in MA, NY, NJ etc. is beside the point. If you deliever PA so much the better. Where do I send the money?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:26AM

Hell, if we want a true "swing state" primary, then PA should be one of the "biggies" in that process. Given the interesting split between union rank & file who're by & large conservative in their personal beliefs, yet still vote Dem because they favor organized labor, I think this state's primary would be a good indicator of a candidate's broad appeal. Certainly more so HERE than in New Hampshire.

W| 1.6.12 @ 11:30AM

In our 57 states there are many more representative states than Iowa and NH

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 2:58PM

"In our 57 states there are many more representative states than Iowa and NH"

Was Hawai'i one of the 57? If so, I think that we only have 56 states now. Obama evidently gave Hawai'i to Asia via Executive Order at some point. I understand that Austrian is now the national language.

W| 1.6.12 @ 3:03PM

Did you know that in Hawaii they speak Hawaiian not Austrian?

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 7:37PM

Don't disagree with your basic points about the unrepresentativeness of Iowa. Just a caveat about your statement that, "On the Dem side, it is very liberal and anti war, thus Obama beat Hilary."

Hillary and John Edwards in fact drew Democrats to the left of those who supported Obama. Both Clinton and Edwards supported single payer health reform, while Obama was resistent to it. Obama ran on support for the Afghan war, which angered Democratic leftists. Unions were much stronger for Edwards and Clinton at the time of the Iowa primary, and most Iowa unions supported Edwards. I know all this, because I worked the 2008 Iowa caucuses for Obama.

W| 1.6.12 @ 10:47PM

RCV
Didn't Obama run on opposition to the Iraq War to distinguish himself from Hillary who voted for war resolution? Obama and many Democrats argued that Afghanistan was the "good" war to get Osama and Iraq was the "bad war."
Did you read "Game Change" and what did you think of it? Is it accurate?

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:36AM

Didn't read it. The positions of the Democratic candidates on the Iraq War were fairly indistinguishable.

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 11:36AM

Al, I think you may be wrong regarding NH delivering its electoral votes for a Republican this go 'round. Last election went to a Republican for Senate and the strong libertarian views of the state simply must result in a rejection of Obamarx. As for Clint and Jack, despite their bluster, if they are true libertarians they cannot cast a de facto vote for Obamarx by not voting for whomever the Republican nominee is. By the way, I said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not at all sure the eventual nominee is in the race yet. We haven't had a brokered convention in a long time but I think the electorate is so fed up with being force fed a candidate by the establishment elites (think the McCain debacle) that a decidedly contrarian tide is building. I still think Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan are possibilities, Daniels' wife notwithstanding. Getting back to Clint and Jack, I find the depth of their anti-Semitism and hatred for Israel breathtaking. Wonder if either one is the spawn of Leni Reifenstahl.....

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:22PM

Thanks for your comments too Jack. As you may guess, I am no great fan of Israel, yet I do believe they have a right to national existence and that the "west bank" was a spoil of war; that is the risk nations take when they attack others. Jordan lost.

What is going on today in the ME geopolitical situation is another result of failed Wilsonian policies following WWI. The entire world is still paying the price for misplaced idealism.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 12:51PM

Al,
If only more thought as you the ME sure would be a nicer place. Cheers.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 2:13PM

DS:
Thanks. Golda Meir (American girl BTW) said, "We will have peace when they love their children more than they hate us." How young are those suicide bombers?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 2:48PM

Al Adab:

I'd like to second Drunken Sailor's sentiments. Its a damned shame that in the mid east, men of principle & peace such as yourself, are amongst the first to have "fatwas" taken out on them for saying the things you say.

I've always been of the opinion that, until that STOPS happening, Islam will never evolve. Can we just clone you?

I salute you, Sir. You are a patriot & I always enjoy reading your posts.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 3:18PM

To damn young AL, to damn young.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 3:32PM

Gentlemen:
Truely you humble me. Compliments from those one respects are indeed moving.

The issue with Islam goes far back in its history to roughly the 1000's. There were competing views by seperate dynasties about which course the Civilization would take. The stringent won. Now, we are seeing an attempted "renaisaince" within Islamic Civilization but again (all too sadly) the stringent are ascendant. We are all prisoners of our history.

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:33PM

The thing that is sad is that if Gaza and the West Bank were run by humans instead of bloodthirsty death loving maniacs, the Palestinians would be the richest, freest Arabs in the world.

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 7:38PM

Golda Meir was a very wise woman, and from my hometown (Brooklyn).

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:45PM

You nailed it. thanks!

Occam's Tool| 1.11.12 @ 8:31PM

My Dear Al,

as "no great fan" you are a hell of a lot better than many who claim to be supporters. Besides that, you are just plain fun.

Just being "fair" tends to make one a non-enemy of Israel.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 11:04AM

Paul won't go third party, he'd kill his kid's political career.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:22AM

I pray ferverently that you're correct.

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 11:38AM

He is.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:46PM

Did you notice how uncomfortable Rand Paul looked, standing in the background as his father gave what sounded like a victory speech after he came in third?

W| 1.7.12 @ 5:42PM

Yes. But it's his father, loyalty.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 9:32PM

And understandable because of that.

wukong| 1.6.12 @ 9:43AM

Sorry to burst your bubble Jack, but I just sent him $25.

Kade| 1.6.12 @ 8:13AM

True enough and Rick needs to do a mea culpa on these previous votes not weasel-word some justification. He also was for touchback amnesty so he needs to articulate his present conversion to a strong immigration enforcement and not embrace Newt’s stealth amnesty. I would also like to hear more from him about crony capitalism and a reckless Fed.

Look I do not trust Santorum because of his Bush-like history but he is better then Flip and the country is in grave danger. If he wins We-the-People need to make sure he honors his present campaign promises – and not do a GWB on us.

Derek Leaberry| 1.6.12 @ 9:55AM

King Midas in Reverse, George W. Bush is the cancer on the Republican Party that keeps on ticking. Every Republican who has come in contact with the Bush regime, and Rick Santorum was one, is soiled and a little bit discredited by that regime. But Santorum is not the chameleon Romney and will thus receive my vote.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:26PM

Bush 43 was hardly the worst of the accomodationist republuicans. That wing of the party is simply go along; get along and fails every time. Think Ford for example and remember that Cheney and Rumsfeld worked for Ford and opposed Reagan during the 1976 election. What if Nixon had made Goldwater VP instead of Ford?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 7:40AM

We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.

Now, Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.

If Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,

chuck| 1.6.12 @ 7:57AM

Yes, you helped throw out Santorum, and replaced him with Casey, who provided vote number 60 for Obamacare!

Gee, Thanks, you damned moron!

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:06AM

We Pennsylvania Tea Party Patriots Don't Buy Your RINO-CINO "Lesser Evil Crap Sandwiches", RINO-CINO chuckie.

We're Vetting Our Candidates, Now To Take Down Junior Casey.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Pennsylvania.

chuck| 1.6.12 @ 8:54AM

Yea, well the "lesser evil" would have been vote 41 against Obamacare!

Thanks for Obamacare, you stupid f$%^!!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:04AM

You complain about Casey, yet it was obviously idiots like you who foisted him upon us in the first f-ing place.

Adjoran| 1.7.12 @ 7:34AM

Toomey couldn't have won the general back then, judging by his numbers in the GOP wave year of 2010. Santorum did owe something to Specter, who supported him in his first run, and was under heavy pressure from his President. Compare and contrast to private citizen Gingrich jumping in to endorse DeDe Scozzafazza in NY-23 and mocking conservatives who backed Doug Hoffman instead.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:03AM

You're so stupid, it defies description. First of all, as usual, you posted this about 300 times yesterday, & posting it another 300 doesn't make it any more true or insightful.

"If Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,"

Yeah. That's why we just elected the equally conservative Toomey, who is almost a carbon copy of Santorum, as far as conservatism is concerned.

Given your piss poor prediction for your Pee Party of One Rebellion's Iowa finish, I think its safe to say that your political prognostications are about as accurate as Punxsutawney Phil's.

Mike D.| 1.6.12 @ 12:55PM

Thats blantant anti-groundhogism if I ever heard it. Make an apology to the worshipers of the rat immediately!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:17PM

Oops! Sorry!

My most sincere apologies to the acolytes of Punxsutawney Phil!

Mike D.| 1.6.12 @ 2:05PM

The big rat says your cool!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 2:55PM

Glad to hear it. After all, the Big Rat sure knows how to throw one HELL of a party in his hometown for his holiday.

I went to Punxsutawney for the Groundhog Day party they have there in the second year I lived here. I quickly dubbed it the "one day Yankee Mardi Gras." It was one of those parties I managed to give myself a 36 hour hangover afterwards.

I'd hate to be kyboshed from the guest list!

Mike D.| 1.6.12 @ 3:05PM

The big rat also says he didn't see his shadow so we have 6 more weeks reading the messianic musings of Dr. Auchewitz from Wisconsin and his sidekick Dave Hitler Jr. neo nazi, 3rd class.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 3:34PM

Can Phil predict elections or only the climate? Might make for an interesting Feb 2nd.

W| 1.6.12 @ 4:40PM

Up to now only the weather.

martin j smith| 1.6.12 @ 7:47AM

Let me say this about that: I would support Santorum not because I agree with everything he says but because he believes in this country. I am no Social Conservative but Paul,Huntsman and Romney are not viable options to save this country.
It would not surprise me to learn that Bachman and Perry will support Santorum--I do not know about Newt. However if New goes after Romney with both barrels that is good enough for me. Thank you very much.--Oh-Have a nice day.

Kade| 1.6.12 @ 7:56AM

Rick was very good on Greta last night regarding Iran – he stuck to his hawkish guns. However he needs to articulate better the concept of Peace through Strength and the wisdom of nipping a threat in the bud to prevent a nuclear holocaust on American cities.

John Kennedy’s brave confrontation of the mighty Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis would be a perfect example and neutralize the dovish Dems since JFK is their folk hero.

irish19| 1.6.12 @ 1:55PM

I like the way you think. He would need to draw the parallel with Kennedy, though.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 3:09PM

The problem is that, these days, JFK Dems are like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. There are RUMORS of their existence, yet no verifiable proof of it.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 3:40PM

Meanwhile President Obie-One is eviscerating our military strength. The interest on the national debt now exceeds defense spending. We are not able to fight two simultaneous wars (or theaters) and have little on the ground ability left under his announcement of yesterday.

Kade| 1.6.12 @ 4:14PM

This plays to Santorum’s strength – Rick should be highlighting in the debates this further gutting of our already shrunken military by Obama. The sheepie need to be scared.

W| 1.6.12 @ 4:45PM

The primary issue is the economy. We have to reduce the deficit by cutting spending and growing the economy. Cut government regulations, repeal Obamacare, lower the corporate tax rate, drill for oil and gas, and let the economy work. A good economy will generate more tax revenues to reduce the deficit. If we do not reduce the deficit, then we are doomed, and the other issues will become irrelevant.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 5:15PM

W:
What is your campaign committees' adress?

W| 1.6.12 @ 6:10PM

Al Adab
Cash only. Walking around money, they call it.

Have a good weekend , Steelers play Denver on sunday with Tebow, but God is with the Steelers.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 6:35PM

Food for thought come Monday. See you then.

Indy| 1.6.12 @ 8:28AM

Did RS take advantage of PA taxpayers? Is this why the loss in PA was by such a large margin?The article below seems to say he did and played the residency game. If true, he seems like just another politician.... Can we learn the truth about candidates before we vote?
http://chestnuthill.patch.com/.....torum-iowa

Mike Rogers| 1.6.12 @ 8:50AM

Jack's still not married Clint, and I suspect that these worthy gentlemen(!) have never taken the trouble to meet the candidates that they are so happy to denigrate. I have met them all, and I can tell you that even Gov Buddy Roemer (AKA Gov Asterisk #3) would be a better president than Ron Paul: http://granitegrok.com/blog/20.....ouse-party
Newt, for all his flaws is considered a decent contender in the Not-Romney stakes, and Santorum has long since cast off the moniker "SanBore'm" and has been electrifying crowds for the past few months. Perry has a core of support, but did not win over enough people, while Bachmann had burned her bridges in NH, which is why she was completely finished by Iowa. Huntsman, who in any sane environment would poll better than Paul, just received the kiss of death - an endorsement by Mitt's home town Boston Globe.

Seems to me that the grumpy couple (JackWI and Clint) did not get the memo from their master:
"[T]hey say they are under strict orders: To look, dress, shave, sound and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Mr. Paul’s chances. Even before flying here on their own nickel, some students said they had been instructed to cover up tattoos and told that their faces should be fresh-shaved or beards neatly trimmed, wearing only nice clothes that one described as “business casual.” - Oh My! Sounds just like the marching orders for the Obamabots of 2008!

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:06AM

Jack & Clint met at a Jerry Sandusky football camp. Not sure who was the "wide receiver" & who was the "tight end" though. Not sure I WANNA know.

irish19| 1.6.12 @ 1:56PM

That was very disturbing.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:26AM

As far as Santorum, his faith & his stance on social issues, since when did deep religious convictions become so "taboo" with most Republicans in general? I find his convictions to be a good thing. Especially in a day & age when people who are openly proud of their faith in G*d are denigrated in the most caustic of terms & by the most underhanded means possible.

People seem to forget that Christianity was one of the, if not THE, largest pillar upon which our Republic was founded. The Founders had a FIRM belief in G*d & His protection in their endeavours.

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”...Patrick Henry

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”...John Adams

“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”...George Washington

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:31PM

(NB):
To add, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
T. Jefferson of all Deists no less.
He judges the nations and we can but pray that our idolotry is no0t so far advanced as to have us weighed in the balance and found wanting. How many children for example must we sacrifice to idols before He overthrows the nation that fosters such "worship"?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:28PM

I shudder to think, my friend.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 2:10PM

Just hope God doesn't watch TV, our modern hedenistic moral depravity would have us judged after the first 29 minutes of so! There is no fear of God, but I think thats going to get reestablished the hard way.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 9:44AM

Romney will snatch NH because NH is a purple state, and he was the governor of neighboring state, MA. He has been campaigning in NH since 2007.
Santorum and Ron Paul will be in the 2nd and 3rd place respectively.
Rick Perry will be in the 4th place. But he'll be a huge factor in SC because of his southern heritage and conservative credential.
Romney is a MA moderate and will lose his clout in SC, and concedes it to Perry, eventually.
Santorum's fiscal policy is outdated, and lacks resources competing big state like SC.
Ron Paul is diminished because of his foreign policy.
Gingrich cannot win because of his troublesome past, and stance on immigration and healthcare.
PERRY WILL WIN SC.
BE THERE.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:55AM

While I'm not sure if he'll win SC, it will almost certainly come down to Perry & Santorum in that state. And it'll be close.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 10:14AM

Reagan lost IA and won SC, and became the president.
Rick Perry will repeat, winning SC and defeating Obama.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:18AM

I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed if that came to pass. Trust me.

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 3:49PM

Current new poll now has Romney leading in South carolina, with Gingrich and Santorum battling for second, but well behind. I guess the governor's endorsement does carry some weight.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 5:13PM

Lets see, Nikki for VP, ya think? Or would she sell out for a lesser cabinet post?

W| 1.6.12 @ 6:11PM

I like Niki, smart and gorgeous.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 6:33PM

W:
I won't disagree with that.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:47PM

She's not VP material, and would bring little to the ticket. Definitely a cabinet head though.

Ted| 1.6.12 @ 9:56AM

Interesting comments all

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:17AM

Clint Pukes:

"The 4-F'er Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job Serves Up Another Crap Sandwich."

I love it when someone who's never even set foot in a recruiter's office tries to make fun of me. Tell us about when YOU tried to enlist, Clint.

The difference between Jack the Proud 4-F Coward & me is that my disqualification was one of the most disappointing things in my life. And, compared to YOU, at least Jack TRIED. You're just content to sit in your Mom's basement & call everyone else a "chicken hawk" while trading on the supposed service of your WWII "hero" Dad. And the reason this strains belief is because if your Dad was a WWII vet, that would make you at least 64-70. And you ain't that old. No one that old writes as piss poorly & as immaturely as you do. That's because those people went to school at a time when they still taught people how to write correctly. Your writing "skills" (deficient as they are) are evidence of your immersion in relatively recent (generally speaking) public education.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 12:29PM

That's Your Serial Liar 4-F'er Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job.

My Dad Was A Commander In The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron,Which Fought It's Way From Normandy,To Paris, To The Battle Of The Bulge, To Germany,To The Link Up In Czechoslovakia With The Russkies.

He Holds The Bronze Star, The Silver Star, The Fourragere, The Croix De Guerre ( Presented To Him By France), And The Presidential Unit
Citation.
But Then, You Already Knew That You Little Punk Ass, Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job.

The Tea Party Rebellion Moves Into The East Coast.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 12:55PM

Then just how old was your dad when you were born because NB brings up a pretty good point on the age thing.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:11PM

Unless you're 65-70, you're full of more bullshit than a Chicago stockyard, valour thief.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 3:20PM

Sure got quiet in here didn't it NB?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 4:23PM

I'm Right Here Ya Drunk.

What Are Ya Gonna Do About It ?

Hmmmmm ?

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 5:11PM

Not a damn thing imbecile. Simply waiting on you to answer the question. How old was your dad when you where born? It's a simple question really. For all I know your dad could be like Charley Chaplin and fathered children into his twilight. I asked you a simple question without insults or insinuation and you reply in your typical fashion. Not that I am surprised. Your kind of Obama like in your avoidance of simple answers to put simple questions to rest.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 3:26PM

Good point! He(clit) would have to be at least 50 years old if his father fought in WW2. My dad fought with the Army Air force and my youngest brother was born in 1957 me in 55. What a psychopathic liar. That really is despicable.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 4:10PM

I Am, Israel Firster Smear Bund Cupcakes.

Wanna Make Somethin' Of It, Nancies ?

Hmmmmm Girls ?

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:28PM

Really, don't look 50 to me punk:

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 4:52PM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !

You're A World Class Imbecile Isreal Firster Smear Bund Girlie, A.J.

That Guy, Wesley Ross, That Wrote That Served In Combat, Attached To My Dad's Commmand.
You're An Idiot.

Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar A.J.

1st Lt. Wesley Ross
3rd Plt. Company B
146 thEngineers Battalion

http://home.scarlet.be/~tsc946.....lition.htm

You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 5:00PM

Lieutenant Wesley Ross

146th Engineer Combat Battalion - B Company

Omaha Beach

http://www.americandday.org/Ve.....esley.html

You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 5:16PM

That's our point Clint, Omaha beach happend in 1944. That was roughly 68 years ago. Even if he was 17 (I'm willing to bet there were not a lot of 17 year old LT's running around) at the time that would make him 85 now. Even giving you a few years and saying you are 26 that would mean your old man was almost 60 when you where born.

See how the math starts to look shaky? Probably not, your delusional and in your own world. Kind of like the movie "Shutter Island".

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 5:39PM

Clint revealed:

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Oh its him alright, its been checked

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:49PM

Perceptive analysis, Sailor!

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 4:17PM

That's A Lie 4-f Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Cupcake Con Job

You're A Liar.

Now, Let's See Ya Make Somethin' Of It, Nancy.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 5:33PM

Wow. More tough talk from the web fingered, inbred, meth addled, valour thieving shithook. Cyber toughies are SOOOO scary.

I've posted MY street address TWICE on this site. Where's your's, Yellowbellied Valour Thief?

bill| 1.6.12 @ 10:57AM

Romney got away in IA, stealing 20 votes from defenceless Santorum, Romney cannot get away in SC and FL. Evangelic Christian voters will get him and send him back to Wall Street, where he belongs.
Rick Perry will crush Romney in SC and FL.
Just Watch!

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 3:58PM

See new poll out today, Bill. In South Carolina, it's Romney 37%, Perry 5%.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 5:11PM

Should such a poll prove accurate and Romney win in SC, all is lost.

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 7:39PM

That is true, which is why conservatives would be wise to coalesce ASAP.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:17AM

Looks like he's going to win it, and if he does, he gets my vote, and unashamedly so.. I want Obama out of office more than dislike Romney.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 12:57PM

I'm actually quite sanguine about a Romney candidacy. The man is a traditional Republican of the old school: pro business, pro Growth, but fairly moderate on social issues, as his record demonstrates. He's a guy who can and has worked with Democrats to get compromise done to solve a problem, and who recognizes that government does have a positive and necessary role to play in a complex society.

Once he secures the nomination, Romney will inevitably move further to the center, to attract more Democrats and independents. If I'm correct that he will choose Perry as his running mate, the ticket will represent a pragmatic approach to immigration reform, one that will accommodate business perspectives and family preservation.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:05PM

Somehow I can't see Rick Perry accepting the V.P. spot!

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 3:42PM

You may be right about that. On the other hand, he's near the end of his reign in Texas and might well relish the national stage this would give him. As you noted, he did not really seem fully committed to the Presidential run this time around.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 4:33PM

He also served as Lt. gov. Under GWB in Texas, so he's shown a willingness and ability to serve in a second spot.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 7:16PM

And somehow, RCV~ I don't think Romney would want Perry as V.P.
Perry's too much of a straight shooter.
Just my opinion, but ya never know.
And it ain't over 'til it's over anyhow.
Going to watch the debate?

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 7:47PM

Wouldn't miss it. I'm too much of a political junkie.

Romney will select whichever candidate increases his chances of winning. He's pretty unideolgical.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 9:56PM

Watching the debates, it is amazing how much of an ass Ron Paul is making of himself.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 12:34AM

RCV:

I think Newt or Santorum have a pretty good chance of winning this.
And who knows, Rick Perry could still pull ahead.
We shall see.
I missed most of the debate but asked my husband who he thought won, and he said Newt.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 11:00AM

Bad news for Romney lovers:

Vote counters said typo gave Romney extra 20 votes.
That means Santorum won the IA Caucus by just 12 votes over "alleged" winner Romney.
Romney got away with that. He may win in NH, but he will collapse in SC and FL.
Evangelic Christian conservative voters will stop Romney and Obama, by all means.
Rick Perry will win in SC and FL.

The Big E| 1.6.12 @ 11:02AM

To All TAS Posters except Clint and Jack in WI:

My grandfather used to be fond of saying, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

So, why do so many of you waste so much time, effort, and column inches trying to wrestle pigs (i.e. Clint and Jack)? They say the same things over and over - indeed, Clint does nothing but cut and paste and hurl insults - and they neither learn anything nor add anything of value to the discussion. They are arrogant in their ignorance, proudly displaying on a daily basis how little they know about anything of substance, and there is nothing any of you can ever say which will change that.

So please, just ignore them. They won't go away, but at least there will be more space devoted to intelligent discussion rather than pig wrestling.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:28AM

Again, sometimes a good chew toy is just too much fun to pass up. And their brand of idiocy & very thinly veiled bigotry just CRIES out for refutation.

But I DO get your point.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 12:14PM

The Mainstream Media Smear Bund Flunkie Stooges First Tried To Ignore The Tea Party, Then Mock The Tea Party, Then Smear The Tea Party.

Now, The Mainstream Media Smear Bund Flunkie Stooges Are Trying To Ignore Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters, Mock Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters, Then Smear Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters.

American Spectator's Readers Get It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Moves Into The east Coast.

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 12:23PM

tHe RuPaUl ReBeLlIoN iS gOnNa GeT sToMpEd On ThE eAsT cOaSt.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:08PM

Of course they get it. They get that you're a robo posting bigot who called Jews "sand monkeys." They get that every time you click the "submit" button, you're good for about $45k worth of free anti Paul advertising.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:38PM

ENTERPRISE:

Marcus Aueralies said something along the lines of, "Don't waste time bantering with fools or barbarians." Not bad advise.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 12:40PM

OOPS, the emperor would be mad at me, Aurelius.

KennesawJack| 1.6.12 @ 1:01PM

Schiller is even better, "In the presence of stupidity the very gods themselves fail to contend." I know I use this quote often but there are simply so many opportunities presented by Jack in Wi and Clint that require it to be referenced.

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 12:26PM

" If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in the 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to them, and talks them out of this so we don’t have a nuclear exchange."

- Ron Paul, Sioux City Republican Presidential Debate

Hmmmm....the Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962 and Paul Pot said during the debate in Iowa that he had been drafted in 1962, but his campaign website says that he served in the USAF between 1963 and 1965 then the United States Air National Guard between 1965 and 1968.

I guess he was a draftee sitting on an imaginary ship in 1962 when Kennedy made that imaginary phone call to Khrushchev to talk him back from the precipice. Except....a Presidential panel studying the military manpower issue reported in 1970, “The Navy and Marine Corps have occasionally issued draft calls to meet temporary shortfalls, but the Air Force has never used the draft.”

KKKlinty, don't you hate when that happens?

Ron Paul: Unfit For Command

http://predicthistunpredictpas.....mmand.html

Drunken Sailor| 1.6.12 @ 12:57PM

That's just his senility taking over. Now get off his lawn!

Resist We Much!| 1.6.12 @ 2:20PM

Spew Alert!

bill| 1.6.12 @ 12:37PM

The Obama administration and his big labor allies unleased a barrage of smear campaign the so-called "recalled election" against WI governor Scott walker, who reformed the public sector reforming and making it more efficient and transparance, fixing the state budget and creating thousands of jobs, we can no longer stay in the side line, it's time to stand up against Obama's tyranny and poer grab, help defend Gov. Scott Walker, donate his election campaign against big labor's multi million dollar smear campaign to oust him.
RGA must help Gov. Walker hold on to his office.
Do not let Obama and his big labor win this battle.
We must act now.

Mike Hawk| 1.6.12 @ 1:07PM

For the benefit of the uninformed and the terminally stupid, Arlen Specter in 2004 was the Senior Senator from PA running for a 5th term. He had overwhelming clout as a 4 term incumbent. In a Senate Majority status he became the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and that was the primary focus of his re-election. We who supported Pat Toomey came close to dumping old Snarlin’ Arlen in the primary that year. Bush campaigned for Specter as well and he had the full support of the PA GOP powers that be. Personally I think Pat Toomey would have beaten the inept Democrat Liberal Joe Hoeffel, but the establishment was firmly behind incumbent Specter as was the Republican Senate Campaign Committee (RSCC). Rick Santorum as Junior Senator was not in a position to buck the status quo (he resisted any endorsement for quite awhile) and made what was more or less the right decision. Neither was his support significant in Specter winning the primary challenge as Snarlin’ Arlen would likely have won without it. His support for Specter was tepid and based on Specter’s pledge to support Rick in ’06.
The Republicans squandered their mandate in ’04 and people became disgusted. Rick Santorum was a high priority target (probably #1) of the Democrats and PA Democrats lead by Fast Eddy Spendell put up a recognized name, Bob Casey, as their candidate. He was confused with his popular former governor father, the late Bob Casey Sr. and the campaign made no effort to clarify that difference. Casey got everywhere he went in politics on his name only and he had a remarkably undistinguished record as well as was rarely seen in Harrisburg. Fast Eddy and his puppet Casey seemed to be everywhere. Specter never liked Santorum (and neither did McCain) and basically stabbed him in the back with little support. The RSCC gave more support to Lincoln Chaffee (who lost), the uber RINO from RI and so did GW Bush. The RSCC also pulled the rug out from George Allen and Jim Talent, both solid conservatives. Establishment Republicans screwed three of their best.

Rick Santorum was one of the most hard working conservatives in the Senate and an honest, decent and honorable man. Had Rick Santorum won in ’06 he would likely be the GOP leader in the Senate and not Mitch McConnell. Rick was the #3 guy after ’04. Frist was the Senate Majority leader and an inept spineless clone of ‘Chester the Cheerleader’ Lott.
All you Paulbot Santorum haters may not like this, but TS, that’s the essential truth. I don’t give a damn what you think as you don't do it very much.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:10PM

Someone get this man an Aston Martin, a Breitling watch, a Davidoff cigar & a bottle of Blanton's Bourbon!

EXACTLY right, my friend. EVERY word of it. Well done, sir.

Al Adab| 1.6.12 @ 2:05PM

(NB),
Can I get in on that? I'd prefer an Omega watch (moon landing edition) however.

W| 1.6.12 @ 1:21PM

Mike
Excellent comment.

We have posted similar comments about Santorum and Specter but it does not make any impression on those who have their minds made up.

And don't forget that Specter's cross exam of Anita Hill showed her as a liar which led to the close confirmation of Justice Thomas.

And remember Specter's chart of Hillarycare in 1993 which helped kill Hillarycare.
But some here prefer Bob Casey to either Rick or Arlen.

Kade| 1.6.12 @ 3:53PM

Mike
In my opinion Rick should of resisted campaigning (vigorously in TV Ads) for militant pro-abort and super-liberal Specter, nevertheless I will probably still vote for him. Santorum of all people knows abortion (leaving out the rare life-of-the-mother cases) is the willing taking of human life, and Specter was harmful in so many other ways.

But there is a larger issue here in that the RNC always backs RINO incumbents with big bucks in primaries where We-the-People should be deciding. Their backing of McCain over J. D. Hayworth is a perfect example of what is wrong with the GOP.

The talk radio guys should be more involved in helping us defeat liberal Republicans in primaries (maybe provide a list) but they are mostly too timid and to wedded to the GOP establishment.

George S| 1.6.12 @ 4:43PM

That Santorum was targeted for defeat by Democrats is the untold story here. They had a pitiful year and as such focused on defeating Santorum. Why? If he was such a big government establishment coddler, then they would not have been frothing at the mouth to defeat him. George Allen and Rick Santorum were targets because they were (relatively) young and conservative. Democrats had to, at all cost, get them out of the picture. They knew they would get to the top. Only the fact that Santorum lost his reelection bid has kept him from showing better at the polls. Now that he has taken the stage, it will be harder to dismiss him. As the saying goes, watch and listen to who or what your opponent fears.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 1:15PM

More Proof of Clint's Valour Thievery:

"My Dad Was A Commander In The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron"

So first, you refer to him as a "recon ranger," a term which NO ONE in the army ever uses. Then you say your Dad was supposedly a "commander" in an Army unit. There is no rank of "commander" in the Army, valour thief.

You either don't know jack shit about your father's service, or you're a lying valour thief. I'm going with the latter.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 3:10PM

Look At This 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund , Con Job Attempting To Smear My Dad's Record.

Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Con Job.

Duuuuhhh !
" On March 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm Wesley Ross said:
" My platoon–3rd Platoon, B-Company: 146th Engineer Combat Bn–and a platoon of the 2nd Ranger Bn were attached to a Troop of the 38th Cavalry Squadron for much of the time after we entered Paris 25 August 1944, and the Bulge. We were often among or east of the retreating Germans. This 38th Cavalry Troop was aggressive to the point of being scary! The Cavalry and Rangers did the necessary fighting as we cleared Tellermine roadblocks and abatis. Their activities are spelled out in my book “146 Engineer Combat Battalion–ESSAYONS” REALLY A GREAT OUTFIT the 38TH!"

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 3:57PM

Those genes must skip a generation.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:08PM

heres your boy from facebook:

Looks like we have a dork on our hands here,

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 4:42PM

You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

Do Your Homework Israel Firster ear Bund Liar A.J.

1st Lt. Wesley Ross
3rd Plt. Company B
146 th ineers Battalion

http://home.scarlet.be/~tsc946.....lition.htm

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Smear Bund Scum.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 4:52PM

This is YOU punk:

heres your boy from facebook:

Looks like we have a dork on our hands here,

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 5:07PM

Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhh !

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !
I'm Not Wesley Ross, You Complte Buffoon.

You're A World Class Imbecile Isreal Firster Smear Bund Girlie, A.J.

That Guy, Wesley Ross, That Wrote That, Served In Combat, Attached To My Dad's Commmand.
You're An Idiot.

Do Your Homework Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar A.J.

1st Lt. Wesley Ross
3rd Plt. Company B
146 thEngineers Battalion

http://home.scarlet.be/~tsc946.....lition.htm

You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 5:39PM

No, what everyone here has witnessed is you being called out as the valour thief you are. Why don't you answer the simple question posed to you by Drunk Sailor?

(cue chirping crickets & "wanna make something of it" tag line)

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 5:59PM

Asked & Ansered 4-F Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, ConJob.

Like I Said,
Israel Firster Scum Such As You, Con Cupcake Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel firster Smear Bund Cupcake, Con Job.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:06PM

You didn't answer shit, valour thief. You're nothing more than some fake baking Jersey Shore wannabe. You're a chauncey of the first order. Not to mention a coward who's never set foot in a recruiter's office.

Don't you have an appointment with Jack for y'alls group choad waxing session?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:40PM

Uh Oh !

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Gettin' All Upsettin' To The Little 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Toughie Girl Crybaby , Con Job.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:45PM

Lemme guess. That's a picture of your "lady," right? It must be. That's why you post it so often, ain't it?

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 6:44PM

The only person getting smeared is you punk. Yeah, wesley, your 50 years old! A mature 50 year old with a job and a life that posts 12 year old level crap on message boards 7 days a week. The closest your father got to D-Day was the first viewing of the "Longest Day" when it hit the theaters.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:48PM

AJ:

At some point, I'm gonna start feeling guilty for punking Clit out as badly as I do. It really ISN'T nice to make fun of the mentally retarded.

But I haven't reached that point yet.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 7:22PM

Dude could blow a gasket if pushed to hard, LOL.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 7:31PM

And that would make me so VERY sad...

(snarkiness off)

Kade| 1.6.12 @ 2:03PM

Just listening to an incoherent El- Rushbo again saying that we really are being persuaded and manipulated by the media on who to vote for or is delectable in the GOP primary -- yeah, right -- as if none of us (stupid people) look at their previous liberal record and positions. Somebody please whisper in Rush’s ear that the primary chaos is due to the fact that all the candidates are all in one degree or another RINOs and Santorum may be the best of a bad hand.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 3:04PM

After Nov 4, 2012, Obama is going back to Kenya while Huntsman is fleeing back to China, as refugees, and Mitt Romney is going back to his old job-Wall Street.
Rick Perry will be at the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for his new job.

RCV| 1.6.12 @ 3:56PM

Bill, you are now bordering on the delusional. The latest poll from South Carolina just out today shows Romney ahead in that state at 37%, followed by Santorum 19%, Gingrich 18%, Paul 12% and Governor Perry a distant fifth at 5%. He placed fifth in the earlier straw poll in South Carolina. His post-Iowa indecision about whether to stay in the race hasn't helped him, and he's written off New Hampshire, so his numbers in South Carolina are only likely to get worse. I believe Governor Perry decided to stay in the race only because it helps Romney by continuing to split conservatives. Perry is now vying for the second spot on Romney's inevitable ticket.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:10PM

RCV,
SC is an Evangelic Christian conservative state. It's a no country for "big government moderate RINO." Romney is one of those "big government moderate RINO." He is for abortion, gay marriage, climate change legislation, and RomneyCare. there goes the "three strikes." Romney will buy NH with his smear campaign and big money, but it won't work in SC, because voters in SC value faith, freedom, and limited government. Romney is the Republican version of Obama, and that's why he is endorsed by a bunch of RINOs, like McCain, Orrin Hatch, Scott Brown, etc. If Romney gets the GOP ticket, Obama will be a shoe-in for 2012.
Rick Perry has the southern heritage and conservative credentials, and can defeat Obama handily. he's trailing now in the poll, but almost two weeks left for the SC Primary. Until then, nobody knows who the winner is. Perry needs to revive his campaign, rebound in the poll, and win SC. Winning SC will boost his campaign in FL. Perry will win in FL and clinch the GOP nod.
Reagan lost IA, won SC, and got the GOP ticket.
Perry will repeat.
We hope and pray.

bill| 1.6.12 @ 4:45PM

A Conservative Manifesto:

To help win the 2012 election and defeat Obama, I propose my 18 points plan:

1. Ban abortion in all 50 states
2. Ban same sex marriage in all 50 states
3. Legalize guns in all 50 states
4. Pass the BBA
5. Abolish Dept. of Education, Energy. Interior, Commerce, EPA, and HUD
6. Abolish the public sector unions (SEIU, teachers' union)
7. No more aid to Pakistan, Palestine, Egypt
8. Increase cooperation with Israel
10. No more cuts in the defense budget
11. Help build the military industrial complex
12. De-fund the planned parenthood
13. Repeal ObamaCare and the Dodd-frank Bill
14. Give waiver to all 50 states on NCLB
15. Mandate a term limit on lawmakers (in the senate and House of Representative)
16. Deport all illegals
17. Mandate the E-Verify system in all 50 states
18. Prohibit hiring and harboring illegals in all 50 states.

I hope all conservative voters will embrace my plan and help America save from liberals.

patroness| 1.6.12 @ 4:58PM

God bless Saintorum and America!

(:(:(: HAPPY EPIPHANY :):):)

patroness| 1.6.12 @ 5:06PM

what a GIFT he is

http://townhall.com/columnists.....at_grinder

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 5:37PM

Heres our boy Clint;

http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:03PM

Geek to the core. My, he's awfully young looking to have a WWII vet for a dad, huh?

Nice pic, Clint. Who the hell're you supposed to be? A wannabe "Situation?"

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 6:55PM

Yep, total dork just as everybody figured. the closest his father got to D-Day was the theater premiere release of the film "The Longest Day", oh and by the way Wesley, Theres more than one Wesley Ross in Human existence twerp, that where you stole the valor from.

A.J.| 1.6.12 @ 7:27PM

This guy is the definition of a message board WANNABE, total fantasy life, total coward, aweful liar. Even a pathelogical liar does show some skill, this guy has none. maturity level of a 6 year old and temperment of a 5 year old.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:08PM

Duuuuuuuhhhhh !

I Ain't Wesley Ross, You Israel Firster Buffoon.

Wesley Ross Was The World War II Lieutenant, Who Wrote About Serving Attached To My Dad's Command.

I Wasn't Even Born Yet.

You Are An Imbecile.

Like I Said,
You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps OnThe Israel Firster Smear Bund Screwball A.J.

See A Psychiatrist, Sport.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:10PM

Watching you squirm is about the most hilarious thing I've seen all day, valour thief. But hey, keep on with it. The humor factor is PRICELESS!

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:20PM

We're Watchin' You Squirm 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Con Job.

You're Just All Hissy Fit, PMS'y Because My Dad Was A Real American Combat Warrior.

Like I Said,
You Israel Firster Scum Have A Serial Habit Of Attempting To Smear American Combat Warriors And American Spectator Raders Are Witnessing It.

The Tea Party Steps OnThe 4-F Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Sissy, Con Job.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:21PM

Your dad is as fake as you are, valour thief.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:15PM

cHef dUmps hIs oStomy bAg oN cLit tO mAke hIm sMell tHe wAy hE lOoks.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:27PM

Now, Your Typin' Like " Resist We Much" Israel Firster Poseur Punk Poster.

The Tea Party Is Stepping On The Israel Firster Smear Bunnd GirlieBoys And They Are Crybabyin' Again.

http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/.....people.jpg

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:40PM

So what? She's a friend of quite some time & your a douchebag.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:14PM

Uh Oh !

Take Your 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Girlfriend, Con Job With Ya To The Shrink.

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !

You Israel Firsters Are So Confused An Apolplectic Over Dr.Ron Paul That Ya Don't Know Whether To Wind Your Ass Or Scratch Your Watch.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:16PM

Projection much, valour thief?

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:34PM

Fact, Fairy

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:43PM

You believe in the Fact Fairy? Is the Fact Fairy as real as your WWII vet father?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:18PM

Wow, Clint. I wish I was cool like you. I know if I were still single, I'd be posting online at 6:17 on a Friday night, rather than getting ready to go to dinner & the bar wih my friends!

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:31PM

Gee, They Let You Gendered Confused Cupcakes Marry Now.

I Don't Drink & I Got A Lady, 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Sissy, Con Job.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The 4-F Toughie Girl, Cookie.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 6:41PM

I guess you'd better inflate her then.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 6:47PM

We Hear, The Fleet Drilled Yo Mama, When Daddy Was Drillin' Swabbies.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 7:13PM

OH SHIT! EVERYBODY RUN!

Clit's been rubbed the wrong way & now has broken out the nuclear weapon of all debate:

(insert horrified gasp) THE "YO MOMMA" JOKE!We tremble at Cicero Jr's ruthless implementation of this rhetorical nuke!

Lemme guess, your Mom, Margie, taught you all she knew about how to debate. Which is to say you both had a meeting that didn't last longer than a nanosecond. I'll bet if you, Jack & Margie all put your heads together, y'all could even construct a complete sentence. After that, y'all can all 3 hold your noses & fart so you can clear your otherwise empty minds.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 7:56PM

Yo Mama's So Ugly She Gotta Tie A Pork Chop Around Her Neck To Get The Dog To Lick Her Face.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 7:58PM

Your mental acumen is STUNNING! Margie must be so proud of you.

POST American| 1.6.12 @ 8:37PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

As NDAA 1031 overturns BOTH the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights ----with,
apparently, the all but complete support
of our CFR front 'Republican Party'
---WILL YOU THERE NOW JOIN THE
FIGHT?

----------------------------HUAC/ Nremberg 2012

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 8:42PM

That's How Much A Troll You Are Israel Firster Smear Bund Troll, Con Job.

Any Regular Here Would Know That Margie Is An Israel Firster Too.

Yo Mama's Like A Board, Easy To Nail.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 9:24PM

Margie's support of Israel is of no consequence to me. She's a bigotted, clapped out old harpy who's hard on for Catholic hatred is matched only by you & Jackboot's ferverent Jew hatred. The 3 of you are all carriers of the same viral poison of bigotry, just with a propensity to manifest it on different boogeymen.

I'm an equal opportunity bigot basher. You & Jackboot suck as human beings for your Jew hatred. Margie sucks as human being for her equally irrational hatred of "papists." Y'all are about as different as Coke & Pepsi

Its quite simple to more than just myself

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 10:53PM

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.

We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." 1 Jn. 4:2-6.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:18PM

YAWN

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:48PM

Clint doesn't believe in Jesus. He believes in the Vatican.
And you don't believe in Him either, and by your filthy mouthed posts and defending of the Religion that has produced the man, you are most matched in spirit as brethren.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 12:28AM

Thus speaketh the Catholic hater. Methinks the lady doth project too much.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:19AM

I'm not a Catholic hater, but you are a liar.
I hate false doctrine, and it's too bad you're an anti-Christ and care nothing like the truth.. which place you in the same exact spot as Clint.

Mrs.Vito| 1.6.12 @ 9:36PM

Robert, your article is very uplifting (despite what some of the mental ward escapees on this blog say). I agree that Santorum's personal beliefs could be a plus for his campaign, and hope for the millions of us who want a decent president who we can respect and trust. Time will tell if Santorum is 'the man'.

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 9:49PM

There It Is Again Israel Firster Smear Bund Troll, ConJob.

Any Regular Would Know That I Have Repeatedly Defend Against Her Relgious Bigotry Regarding Both, Jews And Muslims Going To Heaven.
I Also Call Her, Like I Do You, On Your Strange Bedfellow Coalition Of Israel Firster Agendists, Using Each Other, Her For Her Apocalyptic Israel Firster Agenda And You For Your Identity Group, Israel Firster Agenda.

Yo Mama's Like A Hardware Store, 5 Cents Per Screw.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 10:30PM

Thanks for proving my point about you being infected with the same strain of viral hatred poison as your sister in hatred, Margie. As for Margie's support of Israel:

"Such praise, coming from so degraded a source, was degrading to me, its recipient."...Cicero

Clint| 1.6.12 @ 10:55PM

Lookj At Israel Firster Tryin' To Play His Dog Eared Bigot Card On Tea Party Clint,When You And Her Are Some Of American Spectator's Biggest Anti-Muslim Hypocrites .

As For Your Scoundrel Proclamations Of Loyalty To America:

" Patriotism Is The Last Refuge Of A Scoundrel ," Samuel Johnson April 7.1775.

Israel Firster Scoundrels.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:18PM

Christians & Jews haven't sworn themselves to the destruction of America, idiot.

The only "identity group" to which I belong is that of "conservative Republicans. I just happen to be Jewish, which is a nice club with which to beat regressives who think that conservatives are all WASP types.

I happen to believe in a strong national defense posture, & that belief is not exclusive to the mid east. With a resurgent Russia, an ever expanding China, who claims the entire South China Sea as THEIR territorial waters & coco commies in Central & South America getting chummy with Iran & the Hezbos (both documented FACTS, btw), we face tons of threats as a country.

As far as Israel is concerned, I'm not too worried about her. She can take care of herself. I feel the same way about the Brits, with whom we share just as much, if not more, of our military technology & hardware. Am I now an "England Firster" because I support THAT ally of ours?

Where we will be sucked into conflict with Iran is if they attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz. As the world is RIGHT NOW, we'd be compelled to act in that instance because of the amount of our oil that transits those waters.

I've said repeatedly on this site that we can reduce terrorism's impact & MOST (though not ALL) of our footprint in that region by drilling ALL of our own oil & natural gas, of which there is plenty. If we were to open up ANWAR, both coasts, re-open the Gulf, re-start production in AK, tap the Bakken Range in UT, as well as exploiting the Marcellus Shale natural gas fields, we'd be able to starve the pikers at OPEC who use our petrobux to kill us.

However, if all these miraculous events were to transpire, we'd then have a different problem. We'd then be an energy EXPORTER, meaning that we'd need to ensure the safety of those same trade routes in order for our companies, & therefore our nation, to make money.

And even WHEN that happens, we'll STILL support our only ally in the region that we can count on & who shares our beliefs in Western ideals. That ally is Israel.

Oh, & don't bitch at me about "identity groups" when you called Jews "sand monkeys" you bigoted Jersey Shore poser.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:20PM

You profess your "loyalty" to America, yet refuse to recognize Her enemies. If you had any "loyalty" to America, you would've at least TRIED to enlist, instead of spending all your time in the fake bake & trying to pick up 15 year olds at the King of Prussia Mall.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:21AM

lint,

i see the BOY who was REJECTED is back again.

how your father must be rolling over in shame at what you turned out to be.

patriotism? thats right! you havent got a single cell of patriotism. you FEAR freedom and liberty and justice.

always a never has been.

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 10:55PM

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:25PM

You & Clint get together & plan your insipidly repetitious canned robo posts?

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:50PM

"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 12:18AM

I could care less.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:21AM

Then I'm sorry for you.. because you are lost with Christ.
Perhaps He will see fit to open your eyes one day, as He did for me.
God bless you, kiddo. I will pray for you, and I mean it.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:21AM

meant to say lost without Him.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:23AM

and your moms was FREE at woodstock. guess it only proves that sex and drugs dont mix. but with all those drugs and all that sex, all you can do is CLAIM you knew your dad.

every male walking down the street you say "high dad" to

POST American| 1.6.12 @ 10:31PM

------------------FINAL WORD P.S.---------------------

BTW ---one and all ---CHECK IT OUT

It is now come out the capstone creeps
have not only been tainting processed
foods, plastics, cans, bottles, sodas,
cartons and beer with fertility destroying,
cancer engendering Bisphenol A
------BUT!
are saturating you and the enviornment
with the stuff via dyes, inks (--esp. printer
ink!) ---and papers ---all papers ---and
MOST effectively -----TOILET PAPER!

--Right into the membranes --into the
blood.

SO, as you begin to gut up to take on
Globalism and EUGENICS ---DO monitor
your estrogen levels.

Any doctor will tell you, even males
in their thirties, their twenties, are proving
impotent blanks ---while
girls are going into puberty ---at 7 ---at 5.

------------------THIS IS CRIMINAL-------------------

The deliberate tainting of the food, water,
air or meds ---MUST get the DEATH penalty.

EUGENICS -----is the ultimate TREASON OP.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:18AM

whats a matter?

no more XFILES to watch conspiracy theories?

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 10:56PM

The truth is hate only to those who hate the truth.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.6.12 @ 11:22PM

Nah. I just hate bigots like you, "Papist Basher."

Margie| 1.6.12 @ 11:50PM

You're a liar, therefore a complete and utter fraud.
You are only doing what you were destined to do.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 12:26AM

Oh, so calling you out for the bigot you are, now I'm a "liar." You're a sanctimonious haint who professes to be better than every other person who doesn't believe in your little "religion of one." You profess to be a Christian, yet deny the Holy Trinity. You are a heretic & a fraud.

When G*d made you, I'm sure it was in the image of the serpent, given your forked tounge bullshit Catholic bashing & subsequent calls of "liar" to anyone who deigns to call you out on it. You are a pathetic waste of DNA, & no better than your brohers in hate, Jackboot & Clint.

St. Margie of the Cross. So "persecuted" by the evil "papists." My heart weeps for you (snarkiness off).

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:34AM

Your a liar because your posts are filled with lies. As you said, it doesn't matter what I say~ you hate me.
You reject Christ and you like Catholicism apparently.

I'm a Bible believing Christian and stand on Scripture which isn't in agreement with the doctrine of Catholicism.
Catholicism portrays itself as if it is from God but it is of the Devil, and that's the truth.
I love the Word of God, He put that within my heart~ and I speak as strong as they do but they speak Catholic doctrine and I speak the Scriptures.

Catholics call BIGOT for this reason, but it is because all they can do is name call to try and shut me up.
Jesus is more important to me than anyone's inflammatory and perverted accusations, so I really don't care.

This is an open forum where anyone gets to speak their minds.. except strong Christians who DARE to speak against Catholicism. The vile hatred is spewed from your mouths~ and what does it matter so much to you for?
You're an unbeliever!

I don't profess to be better than anyone~ that's what YOU say, and YOU come off as a royal scumbag, kiddo~ no different than Clint~ you are vile.

And I'm not a Religion of one, punk.

My brethren are the Body of Christ throughout the world, and I believe the same way the Apostles did, and the same way all the Martyrs did who were tortured and killed by the Popes for SIX centuries.

But TRUTH matters not to you.

The Bible (God's Own Words) says that God will throw you into Hell for being a liar.

HIS WORDS, NOT MINE:

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:18.

^^ THAT'S who God says is a waste of DNA. ^^

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:15AM

"For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a Cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in Him will not be put to shame."
To you therefore who believe, He is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very Stone which the builders rejected has become the Head of the corner," and "A Stone that will make men stumble, a Rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the Word, as they were destined to do." 1 Peter 2:6-8.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:17AM

PUNK?

so very Christ like!

bwahahahahahahahaha

mohammed has an opening for you

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:02PM

Punk has to do with ROT, and that is what he speaks.

If you want Christ like, hypocrite:

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." Jn. 8:44.

That's what Christ said to the Jews who refused to believe in Him.
That better?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 2:09AM

p.s. As to the "Holy Trinity", you apparently haven't read the Bible. It isn't in there.

And Jesus never spoke this teaching, nor did the Apostles.
And as the Popes used to put to DEATH Bible believing Christians like me who refused to accept the teaching, I do not have to accept it.

And I've explained this before, but as you keep saying~ and proving~ you don't CARE about what I say, because you hate me.

But for the sake of the Truth, I speak. What I reject is the Catholic teaching and THAT IS a Catholic teaching, which as I've said, they use to teach a false and disgusting thing, and that is, that Mary is the Mother of God, and is sinless like Christ and a Mediator between God and Man.

These are lies, and I reject them.

What I DO believe is that God is One Lord, as the Old Testament says. Do you NOT agree with the Scripture?

If you are really a Jew how is it that you are defending a teaching such as this Trinity?

The New Testament states that Jesus is the Son of God and Mary was His physical Mother, nothing more.
It also says that God sent His Holy Spirit, which He calls the Comforter, who leads us into the Truth, and which anyone who wants to know Christ can receive if they ask God, through Christ.

So, I believe as all Bible believing Christians do.

And this is the difference between Catholicism and Christianity.

Catholics believe what the Vatican says.. it's how they've been taught, but it isn't in agreement with the Bible.

Christians believe the Words of God as they are written in the Bible, and reject the false teachings of the Vatican.

So, I know you don't care what I say, but as I said, as long as you see fit to continue lying about me and what I believe, I'll keep speaking the truth.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 10:36AM

Yes, St. Margie of the Cross. You & your little band of non denominational protestants, which you still have not identified, are the true keepers of G*d's word. Sure, sister. I don't need to be a Christian to know that the Holy Trinity ain't just some "papist" invention.

I grew up around FAAAAR more Christians than I did Jews, & TO A ONE, be they Southern Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalian, Lutherans or yes, the Catholics you so revile, they ALL believed in the Holy Trinity.

I suppose this is the part where you tell me that all THOSE denominations & their teachings are ALSO "wrong" or "false."

As for your prayers for me, I DO thank you for those. And maybe when Tasha & I have kids, I might feel differently about converting to Christianity so that we can all go to church together & praise G*d. Then again, I may not. No matter WHAT I choose to do, I'll still teach my children about their heritage from both sides of my family, both the Catholic/Italian aspect & the Jewish/eastern European "mutt" side as well. And my children will know that it matters NOT by what name you call G*d. All that matters is to keep His Commandments & to be a good person.

My disdain & hatred for the bigotry you display, cloaked in the "piousness" of YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures, is in NO WAY indicative of my feelings towards Christians overall.

So you see, my little shikse, I'm quite comfortable with my relationship with G*d. And how I pursue that relationship is between Him & myself. Neither YOU, nor any OTHER mortal person has ANYTHING to do with it.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:56PM

You keep making stuff up.
I said I belong to no denomination. You just don't understand that there are millions upon millions of Christians who go by no other name than Christian.
You're simply ignorant.

And the Trinity IS indeed a creation of Catholicism. The Apostles didn't teach it and it isn't anywhere in Scripture.

God Himself claims that He is One Lord. And that is what I believe. One Lord doesn't mean "Trinity", it means One Lord. Deut. 6:4.

Anyone who chooses to believe other than what God Himself says, well, it's between them and God.

Since you reject Christ, you have absolutely no say in what I believe or how I believe, nor can you judge me correctly.

Just because you call "BIGOT" like the other lying cult of Mary worshippers, doesn't mean it's so~ you know nothing!

I tell the truth about the cult of Mary, and you hurl insults, so let them fly. I'll continue speaking the truth according to the Bible, and you'll do what you are destined to do~ mock and insult.

I hope God sees fit to call you to Himself and to a repentance and belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because until then you have not the Father.

"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.

p.s. you are the epitome of pride, vileness and phony piousness, and your posts prove it.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 2:15PM

I'm not the fake Christian who thinks the Trinity is "papist inention," you charlatan.

A false prophet & a heretic is what you are.

YOU ARE AN F-ING FRAUD!

She helped G*d inscribe the tablets of the Law to Moses.

She know's more about G*d than G*d does!

She's so pious, she makes Mother Teresa look like a porn star!

SHE IS: THE MIST HOLY WOMAN IN THE WORLD!

"I don't usually broadcast my heretical Christianity in public, but when I do, I prefer to do so on Am Spec! Stay heathen, my friends!"

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:34PM

"I'm not the fake Christian who thinks the Trinity is "papist inention," you charlatan."

The Bible tells us that the liar is he who rejects Jesus Christ, therefore YOU are the charlatan, my man.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 2:19PM

G*d will be calling you LONG before he calls me, you clapped out old bag.

FAKE Christian. HERETIC! APOSTATE! CHARLATAN!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:16PM

Con Artist Chef:

"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." 2 Tim. 3:1-5.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:06PM

"FAKE Christian. HERETIC! APOSTATE! CHARLATAN!"

And an unbelieving Jew and liar would know this, how??

Con Chef (NB)| 1.8.12 @ 12:03PM

Aaah. NOW the worm turns. You ARE like Clint & Jack. You hate Jews too, I see. I kinda figured, but its nice to see you write it. Since when does one have to be a Christian to know aboit Christianity, St. Margie?!

FAKE ASS CHARLATAN.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 8:17PM

The only worm here is you and your low life lying pals.

So, you're NOT an unbelieving Jew?
You said you reject that Jesus is the Christ. That makes you an unbelieving Jew.

So, speaking ANY kind of true statement to you is hate? You are more of a hypocrite than the lying pope worshippers!!

You are such an immature little turd.

RCV| 1.8.12 @ 9:20PM

Margie, observant Jews who don't accept Christ as the Messiah are not "unbelieving Jews". They believe in God, Jehovah. It is not fair to call them "unbelieving" because they aren't Christians. You're starting to sound like a supercessionist who believes God's covenant with Israel is over.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:51PM

John 14:7-10 [7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." [8] Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." [9] Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? [10] Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:11AM

WHO wrote the Bible?

WHAT os the difference between the old teastament and the new?

can you show me where those words are WRITTEN by God himself?

WHAT are the ded sea scrolls and WHY dont they jive with what you wrote?

and have never met a Catholic who said Mary is God's mother. what a LOAD

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:38PM

Well, Devil Dog, you obviously are an unbeliever, and no one can convince you otherwise if that's what you WANT to be.

You're a mocker and are only doing what you were destined to do, along with your other pals here.

Lotsa luck.

Oh, and Catholicism does teach Mary is the Mother of God, it isn't a load. I don't lie.
Catholicism is in fact the Cult of Mary.
They pray to her. They teach that she is another intercessor between God and Man, and that she was born without sin, like Christ.

NOW: THAT is a CULT and NOT Christianity.

And THAT'S what I'm here to say and it is why the liars who are in this cult are here to try and destroy me.

They can't, and no one can destroy the Truth.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:37PM

so i am a FRAUD?

1. what religion do i follow?
2. Mary is Go'ds mother? care to show me WHERE it says that?
3. Catholicism is a CULT?
4. how old is Catholisism and how old is YOUR religion? whcih is the ORIGINAL followers of JESUS?
5. where was YOUR religion when the catholics were beinbg persecuterd in ROME?
6. sanctimonious? am i the one on a political website PREACHING?
7. God is the CREATOR. what he can do is beyond human comprehension.

but it sounds like YOU and ONLY YOU know what God is capable of.

do you know who Tatanka is?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:58PM

Devil dog said: "so i am a FRAUD?"

Again, DD, I wasn't saying that to you. If you're not going to bother actually reading, then don't comment on my comments.

W| 1.7.12 @ 12:29PM

MullahMargie
Your husband said you two are anabaptists. You know the anabaptists who practiced wife swapping and sex with underage children. The Lutherans in Germany were the one who killed the anabaptists because of their sexual practices.

Where in the Bible does it permit wife swapping and sex with underage children?

I know, liar, punk, blah blah.

Keep pretending you are a Christian. You are not a Christian because you deny the two basic tenets of Christianity, that Jesus is God, and the Trinity. Believe whatever you want. But you are not a Christian just a Cult of One because no rational person would associate would you and your weird beliefs.

You must really hate your Catholic parents, why Mullah?'

Still upset about those emails so you are taking your frustrations out here.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:28PM

"Your husband said you two are anabaptists. You know the anabaptists who practiced wife swapping and sex with underage children. The Lutherans in Germany were the one who killed the anabaptists because of their sexual practices."

You're a liar. None of the above is true.

You're an utter FRAUD.
Rev, 21:8 applies to you, sicko.

W| 1.7.12 @ 4:38PM

MullahMargie,

"You're a liar. None of the above is true."

Here is your husband, Victor, saying you two are anabaptists to everything except adult baptism.
Now let us see you lie,parse, and do a Clinton on this. So you lied Mullah.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:25PM
nick:
"Are you an Anabaptist,"

"Anabaptists require that candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so refused baptism to infants. As a result, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both other Protestants and Roman Catholics."

Yes. we were then and we are now.

Reply to this
victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:13AM
Just to clarify, we are non-denominational Christians, not Anabaptists, just as to adult baptism. They are Scripturally sound, therefore we are in agreement.
The Papists and the Protestants both persecuted and put them to death for their Biblical stance.
All for rejecting the false teaching of infant baptism.
Satan so despises the Word of God and those who are faithful to Him.
Fast forward to right here on these very pages.
Only to see the same type of questioning and hounding by you and your Papist pals.
It's the same exact spirit.
That should frighten you, but it obviously doesn't."

So Mullah, what's your story now? Still deny they were persecuted because of their sexual practices such as wife sharing and sex with children?

Why did you lie and deny your religion? Do we have to post your own words every time you lie?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:04PM

You are repeating yourself, imbecile.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:05PM

"Where in the Bible does it permit wife swapping and sex with underage children?"

Burn in Hell, you sick pervert.

W| 1.8.12 @ 12:59PM

MullahMargie
So you got caught lying again, typical for a mullah.
Why did you deny your religion?

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:32PM

I was not caught lying, but YOU are the disgusting liar fit for the sewer where you came up from.

Where is the lie?

My husband said we believe as the ana-baptists did. They were put to death by the lying Papists and their minions for the simple reason that they stood on the Scriptures and rejected the Catholic's false and unbiblical teaching of INFANT baptism.

FOR THIS THEY KILLED THEM!!

NOW: you disgusting creature: ana-baptist means what Baptist means, they are simply Bible believing Christians who reject your CULT of murderous Popes.

As a matter of fact, they didn't call themselves that, others did, if I remember correctly.

They were NOT a CULT~ they were CHRISTIANS. The CULT was the Papist Religion who murdered thousands of them.

Now listen to me you insipid, lying, disgusting human being: The lying Papists, the ones who KILLED THEM, are the ones who lied about them, assigning to them that they were polygamists.

And YOU are a liar just like them, you filthy, horrid creature.

My husband and I believe as they did. There is no such "Religion" I deny, for I am a Christian who believes every Word of God AS WRITTEN in the HOLY SCRIPTURES.

There is no LIE in MY MOUTH, but YOU are a repeated LIAR, and for that you WILL burn in Hell.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

W| 1.8.12 @ 3:14PM

MullahMargie
Hit a nerve there Mullah?

Your cult members were persecuted by the Lutherans because they were sexual perverts, having sex with children and wife swapping.
It appears you are defending the sexual perverts of wife swapping and sex with children by denying the reasons for their persecution.

The lie, peabrain, was that you deny you are anabaptists when your husband said you were. You can't be this dense and stupid unless you are continuing to lie.

Are you going to keep lying or do we have to post the anabaptists in Muenster were persecuted because of their perverted sexual practices, which it appears you approve.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 5:37PM

I have no cult, nor were the ana baptists cultists, they were Christians who were put to death by Catholic Papists, not Lutherans.
YOU ARE A FLAMING LIAR.

The Catholic Popes did this because they refused to accept infant baptism, taught by the Apostate Catholic Religion.

The Bible says to REPENt and be baptized. Acts 2:36. And infants cannot do this as they have no need to and have no knowledge of sin, and already belong to Christ.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs024.htm

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 1:05PM

Margie, the Trinity is accepted by virtually all Christians, including the Martyrs you profess to identify with. The only theological alternatives are polytheism or a rejection of Christ as God, neither concept of which is compatible with Christianity, as John Bunyan persuasively taught. Those who reject the Trinity simply don't understand the New Testament's central message, as Bunyan wrote in "Of The Trinity and a Christian.". I hope your religious growth will someday allow you to realize this.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:33PM

Since you, RCV the flaming hypocrite, isn't even a born again believer in Christ, not do you believe and have said so yourself that the Bible contains the inerrant Words of God~ do you have any understanding of them, nor can you claim to, nor can you in your utter arrogance purport to have any authority to judge Christians.

I believe every Word of God as it is written in the entire Bible.
When you find the teaching of the Trinity in it, let me know, ok?

Now, YOU need to repent and believe the Gospel of God, because if you don't, you'll perish along with the other liars and hypocrites here.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:39PM

question marge,

does one have to be born again to follow Christ?

i was taught from birth to follow Christ. so why would i have to be born again?

isnt that for those who LOSE their way?

sounds like YOU lost your way and are now a jim jones follower.

go ahead and drink the koolaide.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:22PM

"Jesus answered and said to him, Truly,
truly, I say to you, If one is not generated
from above, he is not able to see the kingdom
of God.
Nicodemus said to Him, How is a man
able to be generated, being old? He is not
able to enter into his mother’s womb a second
time and be generated.
Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to
you, If one is not generated out of water
and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the
kingdom of God." Jn 3:3-5.
I drink no kool-aide, but I drink the Word of God of which Jesus spoke and said:

"Jesus said to her, "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the Water that I shall give him will never thirst; the Water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of Water welling up to Eternal life." Jn. 4:13 & 14.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:43PM

marge,

WHO wrote the Bible?

was it man or God?

remember, man is FALLABLE!

and what is the difference between the new and old testament?

please be SPECIFIC!

because you have to remember, the new testament was written by man.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:54PM

"WHO wrote the Bible?

was it man or God?

remember, man is FALLABLE!"

If you were a true believer, you would know that men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:21.

You are a mocker and Reprobate.

I hope you repent.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 4:00PM

Margie, you can believe what you want, but I am indeed a Christian, baptized by water and the Spirit as Jesus taught. I also understand, as you do not -- unlike virtually all Christians, including John Bunyan, a Bible-believing Christian and author of "A Pilgrim's Progress" which you quoted effusively -- that unless you accept the triune nature of God, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the One God and have been since the beginning, you cannot call yourself a Christian, because you are then either a polytheist or a denier that Christ is God, either one flatly inconsistent with the Bible you purport to believe in.

As for the authorship of the Bible, I'm intelligent enough and have studied enough to know what we have learned about its authorship and how it came to be in its present form. God didn't write it; men did -- men inspired by the Holy Spirit, but human, fallible men, who made mistakes and whose own prejudices and weaknesses are sometimes inserted into the text. The Bible is an incredibly rich, varied and complex collection of writings, poems, prayers TO God, Jewish histories and genealogies, prophetic writings, Jewish folk wisdom, letters by Saint Paul, and chronicles of Jesus's life. If you want to believe God wrote them all Himself, that's your prerogative. But, then, you'd have to believe God is responsible for the glaring factual errors contained therein. (How did Judas die, Margie? Which version did God get wrong?)

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 5:54PM

You aren't a Christian, You're a flaming liar.

RCV| 1.8.12 @ 3:06AM

"Liar" to you is anyone who disagrees with you, politically or theologically.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 5:49PM

RCV:

You are a liar. You repeatedly lie concerning what I believe and what the Bible says.

You do not believe every Word of God and have said so.

If you didn't repeatedly lie, I wouldn't call you a liar.

And it has nothing to do with "my theology", since I have not my OWN theology.
You know this, though. You're a smart man, a slickster.

You KNOW already what I believe and that it is all the Words written in the Scriptures and all of the Words spoken by the infallible God through the fallible men whom He appointed.

I'm a Christian who simply refuses to bow to another Religion, an Apostate one, and will stand on Scripture every chance I get because I love His Word.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's Who sent Me." Jn. 14:22.

If you loved Jesus, you would keep His Words, but you dot even believe they are His Words so how can you love Him?
And then you seek to slander one who does believe them??

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:00PM

I don't dent the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, and you know it.
I reject the teaching of the Trinity because it isn't in the Bible, and wasn't taught by the Apostles or Christ.
It is a Catholic teaching which they use to invoke Mary as "Mother of God" over.
It's an Apostate and perverted teaching as such, and as I say, I let the Word of God speak for Himself.

And if you do not believe what HIS WORDS say, you're no Christian.

Jesus sets the standard for who are His:

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

That's the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian.

You don't keep His Words~ you add to them.
You say Homosexuality isn't SIN. You also say the Apostle Paul's words aren't to be heeded.

You also say the Words written in the Bible aren't the inerrant Words of God.

By Christ's definition, that means you don't love Him.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:02PM

s/b deny, above, not dent.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:51PM

"Margie, the Trinity is accepted by virtually all Christians."

And you know this, how???

The teaching is a Catholic teaching, brought in by a man named Tertullian. Do your own research. He wasn't one of the Apostles.
Catholicism ran with it but it is not found in the Bible, anywhere, nor did the Apostles teach it or that Mary is the Mother over this "Trinity".

And no matter how many times I say what I reject is the Catholic teaching, you Reprobates continue lying and twisting my words.
I reject this teaching, not the Words of God, you imposters.

Catholicism uses this unscriptural teaching and say that therefore, Mary is the "Mother of God".. the "Trinity".

It is WRONG and in fact heretical. Your Popes and their minions used to burn at the stake Christians who refused to accept this teaching.

And you want to try and justify it?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 4:18PM

Branch Davidian wannabe. Lemme guess, you were one of David Koresh's former lovers. He saved you from the titty bar you used to work in.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 6:03PM

"Branch Davidian wannabe. Lemme guess, you were one of David Koresh's former lovers. He saved you from the titty bar you used to work in."

You're an unbelieving Jew, you're remarks are despicable and utterly irrelevant.

RCV| 1.7.12 @ 4:50PM

I know it because it is a widely accepted fact. The only significant denominational groups that I know of who call themselves Christian, but who reject the Trinity, are Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Their rejection of the triune nature of The One God and their conception of who Jesus is are precisely why there is debate as to whether these groups can even be classified as Christian.

Let me emphasize that I have no hostility or enmity whatsoever against any of these religions, and have close friends who are Mormons and Christian Scientists and Unitarians. I profess no greater wisdom or claim to Truth than they do, other than my personal arrival at the tenets of faith I hold after prayer and study.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 5:54PM

I let the Scriptures speak for themselves. The Vatican doesn't speak for me, neither do unbelievers and Reprobates.

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 12:41AM

Margie,

"The teaching is a Catholic teaching, brought in by a man named Tertullian."

Tertullian? Is this the same Tertullian found in the Martyrs Mirror:

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM OF THE MARTYRS IN THE THIRD CENTURY
SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THIS CENTURY

"[Among the witnesses of true baptism we have accorded Tertullian the first place, because it was in the very early part of this century that he flourished and spread abroad the fame of his doctrine. He rebuked those who brought such as were too young to be baptized, justifying his rebuke with conclusive reasons.
Leonilla, a Christian grandmother, had her three grandsons, Sosyphus, Cleosyphus, and Melosyphus, baptized after previous instruction.
Then comes Origen, surnamed Adamantius, who gives very excellent and salutary expositions, not only in regard to baptism, but also with reference to various other religious matters (...).]"

Tertullian, of course, apostatized from the True Faith taught by Christ's Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Tertullian joined the Montanist heresy sometime after A.D. 206. He then broke with them and formed his own sect. Saint Augustine reconciled a remnant of Tertullianists.

But, Tertullian always maintained the doctrine of the Trinity, even after he apostatized. The doctrine of the Trinity pre-dated the use of the term to describe the nature and personhood of God.

The first to describe the Triune nature of God was, of course, Jesus Christ:

"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them , in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.'" - Matthew 28:18-20

Notice that Christ uses the singular in the name (eis to onoma in the Greek,) not the plural "baptizing them in the NAMES of ..." This shows that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are homoousios, i.e., of one substance, or consubstantial.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:38PM

"Tertullian, of course, apostatized from the True Faith taught by Christ's Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

Yep, and that's why the Papists killed him.
And his coining of the unbiblical teaching of a "Trinity"? The Catholics ran with it for centuries, and they still are to this day.

NOWHERE is it taught in the Scriptures OR by Jesus OR by the Apostles.

That is a fact.

I choose to allow God to speak for Himself, and not ADD to His Words.

I believe every Word of God AS IT IS WRITTEN in HIS WORD.

"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.

Tertullain added to His Words, and so does the Vatican.

Christians believe the Scriptures, Catholics believe the Vatican.

Nick| 1.8.12 @ 11:43PM

Margie,

"Yep, and that's why the Papists killed him."

Tertullian wasn't killed, by anyone. According to Saint Jerome, he lived to a very old age. Where did you get that from?

"And his coining of the unbiblical teaching of a "Trinity"?"

Actually, the word was first used in the 2nd century A.D. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Trinity:

"The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of 'the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom' (To Autolycus II.15)."

There is also the doxology, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." Which had been around, in various forms, long before Tertullian.

"NOWHERE is it taught in the Scriptures OR by Jesus OR by the Apostles."

In addition to Matthew 28:20, where Christ says, "baptize in the NAME," i.e., the singular, not names plural; there are also the verses in the Gospel of Saint John 1:1-18; 14:7-10; 16:15; 17:21; & 20:31.

"Tertullain added to His Words, and so does the Vatican."

And, Tertullian is also praised in Martyrs Mirror. What does that say about the historical accuracy of that book?
God Bless!

W| 1.9.12 @ 5:31PM

Nick,
It should be obvious that Margie lies and makes up "facts" to justify her bigotry. She denied her own religion that her husband said they were ananbaptists.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 11:15AM

you hate me.

your a liar.

waa waa waa.

what is with you?

sound like a prog to me.

ps, this is a caonservative poloitcal site.

why dont you go back to huff po or did they kick you?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 1:59PM

So, when someone insults, demeans and lies about you and what you believe and what you say repeatedly, you wouldn't call them a liar?

Right.
And THAT qualifies me for HuffPo?

What a chump.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 2:16PM

You're a fucking fraud Mullah Margie. Everyone knows it but you. How sad.

Al Adab| 1.7.12 @ 2:52PM

S'hima Yisrael, Adonai elohim, adonai echod.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:11PM

"S'hima Yisrael, Adonai elohim, adonai echod."

Translated:

"Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." Deut. 6:4.

Amen!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:28PM

You don't speak "for everyone", punk.

As I said: p.s. you are the epitome of pride, vileness and phony piousness, and your posts prove it.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:40PM

bwahahahahahahahahaha

so you are ADMITING you are a chump!

at least you were honest for once in your life.

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:41PM

BTW marge, how many times have you gotten homer and the kids to church?

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:46PM

oh yes marge, show me anywhere where i have demeaned you or your religion.

also, YES! you REPEATEDLY SPAM a POLITICAL SIGHT with your RELIGION!

so you admit that you come here to spread the gospel and NOT discuss or debate politics.

does that mean you do that in Church? refuse to talk God and instead talk politics?

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:53PM

"I AM he - (the Messiah)"

The Most Often Quoted Verses
JOHN 8: 24 and 8: 58
Read the scanned pages of the Bible,
learn the Gospel Truth
and Abide by the Spoken Words of
CHRIST JESUS
If you do claim to be a CHRISTIAN
and affirm to be a true disciple of CHRIST.
The dictionary meaning of the word 'Christ' reads:
"the anointed king or Messiah of Jewish prophecy"

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:56PM

The gospel of John, which presents Jesus Christ in His deity, is sometimes called the "I AM" book. Over and over again in the book of John, Jesus said, "I AM." To the learned Jew this phrase "I AM" was very significant. It was a claim by Jesus that He is God. Why? In the Old Testament when God called Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt, He told Moses to tell the nation that "I AM" has sent you (Exodus 3:13-15). "I AM" is the covenant God of Israel, Jehovah! Therefore, the great "I AM" is the designation for God to the nation of Israel and Jesus' statement "I AM" is a clear indication that He was saying, "I AM God."

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:57PM

and marge,

you were talking about being BORN AGAIN.

in order to be born again, one has to be taken with the "Holy Spirit".

isnt the Holy Spirit part of the Trinity?

DevilDog| 1.7.12 @ 2:59PM

Jesus also affirmed His deity to the disciples. "'If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.'" (John 14:7-11, 20).

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:03PM

I let the Scriptures speak for themselves.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:36PM

So then, why aren't you following Him?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:04PM

I've been posting here for about two years, and don't consider my posting as spam.
If the owner of the site does, he can boot me.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:08PM

"oh yes marge, show me anywhere where i have demeaned you or your religion."

I didn't say YOU did, dope.
Can't you read?

martin j smith| 1.7.12 @ 7:42AM

Back to New Hampshire--another small state probably no more than 1-2% of the US population-boy these media folk do magnify things just a tad do they not ? Beyond that here is a consideration that should be kept in mind. Just because Romney has a lot of money does not make him the best candidate. Santorum is the American Dream. This is not an endorsement but it is a point and especially more about why I do not support Romney. He will get Money from Wall Street but not represent Main Street. That is the larger problem for Wall Street is Socialist believe it or not.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 3:25PM

DDog:

Shoot me an email.

The sound of the cickets left in the apostate's midst are deafening, are they not?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:30PM

Con Artist Chef the liar and vile human being defends the false teachings of the Cult of Mary and he isn't a believer in Christ.
He's confused and his heart is raging against the LORD.

"When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD." Prov. 19:3.

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 4:15PM

Take your non Trinity believing faux "Christian" bullshit & blow it out your tuchus, apostate.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 5:34PM

You ought to become a Catholic, kiddo. You'd fit right in!

Nick| 1.7.12 @ 11:59PM

Con Chef (NB),

We Catholics would welcome you with open arms! Ha-ha!
Shalom and G-d Bless!

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 3:50PM

He's already there.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 4:08PM

Except that he doesn't even believe in your teaching of the unbiblical "Trinity" that he is defending.

RCV| 1.8.12 @ 9:33PM

He is not defending the Trinity. He's defending the millions of good men and women who recognize the Trinity against your constant vituperative slanders of them. Millions of Bible-believing Christians, from John Bunyan and Martin Luther to virtually all contemporary Christians, understand that the triune nature of God rests firmly on the teachings of the New Testament. You can choose, if you want, either to believe that Jesus is not God, or that He is separate from the Father and thus there is more than one God (polytheism). But that's your very minority view of what the New Testament teaches us. You've never answered my inquiry of what you think John means when he tells us that Jesus, the Word incarnate, was "with God" and "is God" from the beginning. If the Word is God, and became flesh and dwelt amongst us, how can He and the Father not be one?

W| 1.7.12 @ 3:51PM

MullahMargie,
Here is your husband, Victor, saying you two are anabaptists to everything except adult baptism.
Now let us see you lie,parse, and do a Clinton on this. So you lied Mullah.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:25PM
nick:
"Are you an Anabaptist,"

"Anabaptists require that candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so refused baptism to infants. As a result, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both other Protestants and Roman Catholics."

Yes. we were then and we are now.

Reply to this
victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:13AM
Just to clarify, we are non-denominational Christians, not Anabaptists, just as to adult baptism. They are Scripturally sound, therefore we are in agreement.
The Papists and the Protestants both persecuted and put them to death for their Biblical stance.
All for rejecting the false teaching of infant baptism.
Satan so despises the Word of God and those who are faithful to Him.
Fast forward to right here on these very pages.
Only to see the same type of questioning and hounding by you and your Papist pals.
It's the same exact spirit.
That should frighten you, but it obviously doesn't."

So Mullah, what's your story now? Still deny they were persecuted because of their sexual practices such as wife sharing and sex with children?

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:53PM

Idiot and Reprobate, "W".
His words speak for themselves, and SO do yours.

W| 1.7.12 @ 3:56PM

MullahMargie,
Now you know that idiot is your name, and again you are projecting your stupidity.

Is this the best you can do Mullah? You are slipping in your hate and venom. Truth hurts,laugh laugh.

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 3:59PM

The hatred in on your part, not mine you lying fool.

W| 1.7.12 @ 4:11PM

MullahMargie,
So then I had to show you your own words for you to admit it? Why are you lying and denying your religion?

Con Chef (NB)| 1.7.12 @ 4:23PM

She sounds like a Branch Daviduan wannabe. She must've been one of Koresh's former lovers. He saved her from the low rent titty bar she used to work in, no doubt. After all, here's no zealout like a convert!

Margie| 1.7.12 @ 5:51PM

"For the Word of the Cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the Power of God.

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." 1 Cor. 1:18-24.

W| 1.8.12 @ 1:04PM

MullahMargie
When you have no answer you resort to posting verses. Do you know how to speak in English besides liar, punk, papist, burn in hell, screw you and so on?

What does it mean that "Jews demand signs" and that the "crucified Christ is a stumblig block to Jews?" Why did you post this verse?

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:39PM

"W" you are one of the most disgusting human beings I have ever come across.

W| 1.8.12 @ 3:18PM

MullahMargie
Maybe you should be called MuensterMargie after the cult members there.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 3:49PM

Repeat post @ 2:39.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 2:51PM

"When you have no answer you resort to posting verses."

Obviously you're not a Christian and are utterly DEVOID of His Spirit.

Christians stand on the Holy Scriptures.

Vatican worshippers stand on lies and insults to those who do.

You obviously reject the Scriptures if you consider answers from them as "having no answer!"

Not surprising at all, since you exist for the sole purpose to serve your FATHER the Devil.

Hypocrite.

W| 1.8.12 @ 3:17PM

MullahMargie
You can't handle the truth.
And you can't answer simple direct questions. You just know how to insult, deflect, and evade.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 3:38PM

That is very obviously funny, or it would be if it weren't so sickening.

You're an utter fool.

W| 1.8.12 @ 4:28PM

MullahMargie a/k/a MuensterMargieCult,

Go play with your snakes and read your emails.

Margie| 1.8.12 @ 5:41PM

THE BLOODY EDICT ISSUED, A. D. 413, AGAINST THE SO-CALLED ANABAPTISTS, BY THE TWO EASTERN EMPERORS, THEODOSIUS AND HONORIUS

In order to give a thorough account of this bloody edict, and this in the best possible manner, we shall present the different versions which we have found of it, word for word, and then state our own views in regard to the matter.
FIRST VERSION, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SEBASTIAN FRANCK, IN HIS CHRONIJK, 1563, FOL. 136, COL. 3

"The most important matter in this transaction" he writes,"is the imperial code, which contains cap. 1, lib. 2, an edict issued by the Emperors Theodosius and Honorius, which reads thus: 'If any minister of the Christian church is found guilty of having rebaptized any one, he, together with the person thus rebaptized, provided the latter is proved to be of such an age as to understand the crime, shall be put to death."'
SECOND VERSION, ACCORDING TO THE ANNOTATION OF MARTIN BELLIUS, IN THE TRACT, VAN DE KETTERS, EN OF MAN DE SELVE SAL VER VOLGEN, DEDICATED TO CHRISTOPHER, DUKE OF WURTEMBERG, PAGE 53

"Since we must speak," he writes,"of that imperial code, we will relate the following, namely, about the law contained in the first codex prohibiting rebaptism. Joined to the other, it reads thus
"The Emperors, Honorius and Theodosius, to A. A. Antonius, the magistrate, "If information is obtained that any one has rebaptized a servant of the Catholic [general] religion, he shall be put to death, together with the latter, who has committed a punishable crime, provided he is of an age admitting of the capability, to commit such (and has been instructed concerning the matter)."
THE ABOVE EDICT, ACCORDING TO THE ANNALS OF CARDINAL CJESAR BARONIUS, IN HIS CHRONICLES, A. D. 413, NUMBER 6

In that year, he writes, the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against the Anabaptists, commanding that they should be put to death.
This was subsequently also quoted by the inquisitor of Leeuwaerden, in his controversy with Jacques d' Allchi, in the year 1558. See register of the 2d book, on the name Jacques. Also, Inwoduction, fol. 47, col. 2.
These several versions of the edict of Honoriu and Theodosius unanimously indicate three things 1. That at that time, A. D. 413, there were peopl who were called Anabaptists. 2. That on accoun of this matter of rebaptizing, these people were exceedingly hated by the world, especially by the great. 3. it is shown how they were hated, namely, unto death, so that the command was given, that they should be punished with death. However, intelligent people well know, that Christ, our Saviour predicted long before, that such thing would befall His disciples and followers. Matt 10:22; 24:9; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12; John 15:19; 16:2.
Moreover, that the afore-mentioned (people against whom said edict was issued, were no strange, unknown, erring spirits, but such peopl as are also in our day styled Anabaptists; this no only the inquisitor of Leeuwaerden, A. D. 1558 readily admitted, as has been shown in the prope place, but all the particulars of the last mentione authors make it almost as clear as the sun at midday, that this is the general opinion of the Roman ists. Nay, it appears that the edict of Honoriu and Theodosius was carried into execution, no only A. D. 413, and in some of the subsequen years, but that it was no small cause of the last great persecution of the Anabaptists, which began about A. D. 1524, through the strong urging of the Papists, especially of their clergy, who, to all appearance, by it induced the Emperor, Charles V to renew said edict against the Anabaptists of thei time, as being an identical people, and of the same faith, with those who lived in the time of Honoriu and Theodosius. At least, that many papistic magistrates put to death innumerable pious Anabaptis Christians, by virtue of said ancient edict of A. D. 413, appears with such certainty from various authors, that it cannot, with truth, be denied. Compare Seb. Franck, fol. 136, col. 3, with Marti Bellius, page 53.
Now the couplet of Prosperus was verified namely, that baptism did indeed sanctify the true candidate in some measure, but that all this was perfected by the crown of martyrdom. This was afterwards rendered in German, by Jacob Mehrn ing, thus
"Was heylligs bringt die Tmuffe schon
Solchs gants erfuellet der Martrer chron."*
http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs024.htm

W| 1.8.12 @ 10:48PM

MullahMargie a/k/ MuensterMargieCult

If you want to read about your perverted cult:

Volume 42/Number 1
"For the Honor of God and to Fulfill His Will": The Role of Polygamy in Anabaptist Münster
Darren T. Williamson
Simon Fraser University

The Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster, 1534–35, is most vividly remembered for its excesses. Fanatical violence, communalism, and sexual peculiarities mark this unique episode of the Protestant Reformation. One of the more controversial innovations was polygamy, the full impetus of which eludes modern observers of the Münster Anabaptist........

I am sure you knew about this and you lied again.
And they were prosecuted by the Protestants, mainly Lutherans in Germany, and Catholics. About 2,500 were killed, not 50 Million.
Got that peabrain Mullah?

POST American| 1.7.12 @ 9:47PM

------------------------P.S. BTW--------------------------

-Putting aside New Hampshire and
this latest CFR Republican FAKE OP----

-BUT continuing with capstone EUGENICS

CATCH THIS!

Seems the Sinamix bio-tech corp.
which is 'dedicated to discovering
new artifical flavor enhancers' for
our GMO and processed foods
has been X-posed. See, they want it
to be tasty and addictive so you eat
it more ---so it can sterilize and kill
you faster --more effectively.
You know ---'X--speed--E---antly'.

Seems on of their niftiest tricks is
using something called HEK 293 in
their formulas. The stuff, according
to them, works like a dream to enhance
the taste receptors.

----AH, but 'the stuff' is nothing else
than human embryonic kidney cells
extacted from electively aborted
children.

This swill is saturating our food chain.

NESTLE --among a host of others, are
major clients.

-----Remember that name! 'SIN--A--MIX'.
Remember that formula HEK 293.

AGAIN, they DO love those wordplay
giveaways.

Like we said, those behind the stealth
tainting of food, water, air or meds
should face ----the DEATH penalty.

----------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012---------------

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY KIDDIES!

Giovanni| 1.10.12 @ 3:07PM

Rick Santorum is not a conservative, he voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times.

"Staunch Conservative." Hilarious.