Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A Little Anti-Romney Sanity,OK Folks?

?!!

WOOP! WOOPWOOPWOOP!,...WOOP!,.......woop woop

Does not "your" hermeneutic "stem" from Augustine (who I admire) who decided Revelation (in particular) could not be explained other than in symbolism, spiritualizing, and such. And then came Origen in the third century A.D. who went even further. And then in the Reformation, Luther expressed similar sentiments. It's ironic then that in vs three in ch 1 of Revelation is found the only place in the whole of the scriptures where it states the the reader and speaker "of these words" is blessed.

I used Missler as an example though there are many others who are not out in orthodox Christianity loony land (though I realize many Reformers, to borrow a mathematical term, are rather a closed set) and while I guard against being dogmatic about it is it not true that the Reformers have steadfastly as a group ignored the prophetic parts of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and acted as if anything past the first four chapters in Revelation were just plain Diaper rash? Hermeneutic or a tradition of ignoring large portions of scripture?

Anyway, be aware "of the seasons" by the signs. I think we'd agree they are tumultuous.

yes, mike, I'm sure a country floating on oil is spending a huge portion of its GDP on electric power generation experiments, and hollowing out mountains for the research because it's cheaper than regular construction.

surely you're not saying they're not trying, you're just saying they're not there yet. well, yeah....that's kind of the point.

WMDs in Iraq. Didn't Steve vacation over there some time back and find them dam things.

There's a thing here about our country--the world--philosophically speaking, that once a threshold has been reached (I don't know quite how to articulate it other than the "exponential proliferation of everything"), we can no longer go back to the reality of TJ than we can go back in time without a [/b] major reset [b].

And in the words of that famous philosopher, Chris Farley, "It's gonna leave a mark." maybe until that happens, we're playing around the edges.

You don't have to go much past Obamalitecare to figure out the little POS is a socialist!

Why wouldn't they want nuke power? It's a heck of a lot more efficient and less polluting than oil fired power plants. Besides, oil is a finite resource that will eventually deplete and at a much greater rate than uranium.

Whether you want to believe that they desire the nukes for power generation or power projection, the sources that we have on exactly how far along they are and whether they intend to weaponize are suspect. It mostly comes from the Mossad, and they have a very large stake in getting us to believe their version of things.

But let's say that they get a nuke soon, what evidence other than conjecture do you have that they would in fact use it, and are you willing to further indebt the country, sacrifice more blood, and possibly wreck the world economy by cutting off 40% of the world's oil supply to ensure that they will not acquire one? Do you think that the Iranians are more willing to commit national suicide than say, the Pakistani's, Indian's, or North Koreans? And why are we not threatening these other countries? Are we going to get an actual declaration of war from Congress this time, or are we going to intervene under the War Powers Act as we did in Libya? Or maybe we're just going to get them to provide the casus belli through sanctions and actions that do harm to their populace and drive them to war.

To me this whole "bang the drums" for war smells to high heaven, worse than the pretexts we used for Iraq, and it comes at a time when we can least afford it. Maybe that's why, to deflect attention from the worsening economic conditions here at home, and get everyone worked up over some boogy man in the Middle East.

I'm not buying it. Fool me once-Iraq, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

given enough money and time, every country that can acquire nuclear weaponry will.

who can blame them, we invaded Iraq and deposed their ruler, who was a bad actor, but no worse than lil Kim in North Korea, or perhaps no worse than the Pakistanis that hid OBL so well for so long, as far as we know.

you have nuclear you don't get invaded, you don't have it, it's a risk you take, that seems to be the geopolitical lesson of these last few decades.


do you really think we'll be able to hold off Iran from ever getting nuclear weaponry Steve? To me it seems inevitable. They've got the oil to finance it, and peak oil is bandied about, only the Iranians know how much they have left, if they're to have a future wouldn't it be smart for them to have nuclear energy and weaponry?

That Nostradamus guy said those Iranians would. I watched him on tv Steve musta seen the same show.

Wow! Tell me Neville Chamberlain isn't proud of some of y'all!!

When did Iran become a friendly, trustworthy state? Instead of Israel....

do you really think we'll be able to hold off Iran from ever getting nuclear weaponry
==========================

My friend,Randy,

Syria has been nuclear disabled for a couple of decades and the disruption a significant attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would cause,coupled with global interactions such as the "virus" Iran recently experienced and continuing sanctions will also set Iran back for a couple of decades,if not longer,and have them crying uncle in short order.

To think Iran should be entitled to implement a functional nuclear arsenal on top of their express threats to annihilate another allied nation is a mindset that boggles the mind and contrary to the opinion of over 60% of US voters who feel Iran should be prevented from having such a weapon.

The naivety expressed here is more than remarkable,it's dangerously foolish and it's refreshing to see that such foolishness is limited to a infinitesimal faction of this country's daydreamers.

And it's always, always the RPeeer's....I hope when the day comes and RP is laid to rest these goobs are buried with him.

Bless his soul.

Fixed it.

If I can figure out how to do it I'll make sure your body is wrapped in an upside down flag for the burial.....not an American flag, of course.

What flag would you choose?

Easy Bob,


no where did I say Iran was entitled to nuclear weapons or that I have any desire for them to have nuclear weapons, just that I understand their desire to have them and why.

it's just logic, and I'm wondering if you're just being obtuse as a ruse.

heck I didn't want lil Kim to have nuclear weapons, but he's got them and they seem to work pretty well for him, despite all the failings of communism and most of the world turning away from it by at least some degree, N. Korea still pretty much practices that political philosophy in large part because they have the capability to extract too high a price from anyone desiring to end their little experiment.

If Mexico was our sworn enemy and they had nuclear weaponry, do you not think we'd be working diligently to acquire our own nuclear capabilities?


I have no idea how China is dealing with Iran, but my best guesstimate is they're probably buying their oil and selling them military technology to get their money back.

I've also no problem with Israel bombing Iran's nuclear sites, creating viruses to disrupt their progress etc.

Hell I was all for us going into Iraq and winning the war, but I thought it was bullchit that we stayed and tried to win the peace. What has that got us? If you go to war and win their should be some spoils. Still incredulous that we didn't get enough oil from Iraq to reimburse us for liberating those kind, decent folk.


and I agree that the naivety expressed here is remarkable, but it seems to be a lot more widespread than your estimate, what so many of you can't seem to get is......


we're broke, and 15 trillion in the hole, we depend upon the financing of China and others to continue to play our role as world superpower and world policeman.

we're the bright beacon light upon the hill, we're out to right the world's wrongs and let justice prevail, if we can just get someone to finance it for us

that's the bottom line my friend, courtesy of those folks you and I have elected


I understand a simpleton like Stan mistaking logic for pacificism, but certainly expect better from you.

Well, after reading your post I'd suggest you not call someone else simpleton....

it's just logic, and I'm wondering if you're just being obtuse as a ruse.
==============

I'm sorry...I could have sworn I read you to ask "can anyone really stop Iran from having the nuclear bomb?"

My bad.

If you'd rather have a little more bush-beating, I guess that's okay; but although you softened the first and second phrases without too severely altering the general sense of them, you completely redirected the third, so that it's essentially a restatement of the second.

What I originally meant is that a private-sector evil man with merely persuasive power is strictly limited in the amount of devastation he can cause; but a public-sector evil man with coercive State power and rank upon rank of armed State thugs to back him up and herds of State intellectuals to generate propaganda for him is nowhere near as limited.

If you want to soften that, that's fine; but that was the direction I was headed.

I'm hoping we can aid in the delay of Iran getting the bomb, but I can certainly understand my enemy wanting to acquire weaponry that neutralizes the vast military superiority of those on their borders.

buying time is most certainly a worthwhile endeavor, maybe we'll get lucky and we can delay them till dinnerjacket is resting in the ground or better yet scattered to the 4 winds.


but I've seen little evidence from the ME that he'll be replaced with much more to our liking.

I knew what you meant, Barak. I don't think you read it carefully if you think the third is now a mere restatement of the second. Government power corrupts (2), and (3) government amplifies the destructive impact to society of this corruption, e.g., private corruption is far more limited in potential scope. Basically, I'm saying I agree with your sentiment, but with very slight modification in choice of words.