Traveler

Members
  • Posts

    15770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Posts posted by Traveler

  1. I cannot describe my testimony of Christ by a one-dimensional occurrence. I can describe elements as parts and even events that have contributed. I think I have always had a feeling there was a Christ from the first stories of my youth that were told to me by my parents. My first life changing experience came at the age of 8. It was my first earnest prayer (prayer with a promise) pleading in behalf of a dear friend that was lost. The spirit told me where to go and find my friend and a life in peril was preserved. At age 13 I was told that the Book of Mormon is a gift of G-d and a light unto the world. At age 17 I was delivered safe from the hands of enemies that sought to take my life. At age 21 I was allowed to serve a two-year mission to give witness of the Christ. At age 23 I was drawn into the wilderness for a month long spiritual quest. At age 26 I married my eternal beloved wife that has help me with our children and the blessing of being a husband and father has been the greatest revelation of the Christ, his love, his grace and his sacrifice.

    The Traveler

  2. Sorry I got lost a little on where this thread is going. I am not sure I am agreeing but I have not had the time to read all the posts. Sorry again.

    For me faith is quite different. Faith has more to do with what you do than what you think or what you think you are thinking (sorry I included such thinking). When someone has a lot of faith I like the understanding that they are "faithful". Therefore covenant has a lot to do with faith. Without covenant there is no faith or faithfulness

    I think it is possible to exersize faith when you are not sure you are doing the right thing but realize that you have made a covenant. I think that being faithful is what you do inspite of what is being thought.

    I also believe that all acts are acts of faith in something and that sometimes our acts and faith are in the wrong things.

    The Traveler

  3. Originally posted by curvette+Nov 19 2004, 05:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Nov 19 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 19 2004, 01:49 PM

    Why would anybody in their right mind bow down to dumb idols?

    And yet people "in their right minds" consistently did just that for thousands of years. It seems strange to us, because we've grown up in a monotheistic environment. Ancient peoples though, couldn't grasp the concept of a single, "Alpha" God who didn't want to have images of Him made. They didn't worship the idols persay, they worshipped the deity. The idol was just something physical to represent the deity to the people. Sun, rain, wind, harvest, fertility, etc. Their everyday lives depended so heavily on these things that they would sacrifice whatever they thought these "gods" wanted in order to keep them happy. Even Israel had a very difficult time giving up the gods that they could see the images of day to day for the unseen God Yahweh.

    I am pleased to see we agree. But I would add that I am very much ammazed at what people will devote their live and energy to - even in our day of such great possibilities.

    The Traveler

  4. Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Nov 19 2004, 03:39 PM

    I enjoyed your post as I always do.

    Am I correct in my summary?

    !. Our Father in Heaven has become as such just for our benefit.

    2. In order for us to become one with God, we must not only love others, we must serve unselfishly just as he has done for us.

    3. For us to be able to live in the presence of Him, we must acquire enough goodness here while we are on earth. In acquiring that goodness, we must make sacrifices for the benefit of others, love and serve, just as our Father in Heaven does for us. We must become like Him, therefore holding His image in our countenance.

    I agree with both your summare and efforts to make the concept your own.

    Thanks

    The Traveler

  5. Originally posted by Ray+Nov 19 2004, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 19 2004, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Great points, Traveler.

    <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler

    @ Nov 16 2004, 07:29 AM

    For this is life eternal to know the only true G-d and Jesus Christ who was sent by G-d.

    What is it about G-d that has convinced you to worship or not worship him? What in his character and attributes is it that makes him G-d? Should you, as a believer be an example of that charactor and attribute?

    If you are reborn in G-d how are you convinced you that you are one with G-d? If not what is your opinion about being one with G-d?

    What it is about God that helps me to worship Him is to realize that He is literally our Father and, as you said, He is only doing what He knows is best for us. And the more I learn about His character and attributes, and follow His counsel, the more I realize that He is worthy of my worship, to the point that I want to do more and more of what He wants me to do and become exactly like Him. I wouldn’t worship just anybody, you know.

    Btw, have you ever thought about what it means to worship somebody, or something? Why would anybody in their right mind bow down to dumb idols? Or why would anybody in their right mind spend their whole life trying to get things that are going to be gone from them as soon as they die.

    Anyway, I also know that is why our Lord worships our Father in heaven, and why our Lord urges us to worship Him. Our Father truly does know what is best for all of us.

    One of the most popular things of worship is money, another is power and another fame but the one that gets the most is pride. CS Lewis once said something like if you think you have conquered pride, you have failed.

    Thanks for considering my opinion.

    The Traveler

  6. All of your responses are interesting though not exactly what I expected. I would like to introduce a concept about G-d that I often find missing in the manner that others esteem their worship. I agree that one of the most defining wonders of G-d is his absolute and incredible love. Here is the point. He asks us to worship him, not because he is greater than us, nor is it because of his power or majesty or for any benefit for himself. He has commanded us to worship him because he loves us and he knows that we will benefit through such worship. He also knows that if we attach our worship to something other than him that it will cause us to loose benefit.

    He commands our worship not because he gets a rise out of it. I actually believe that he is the king of heaven – not because he want to be king but because he knows that his being king is the best possible thing for those in heaven. He does what he does and is what he is out of service. It is a sacrifice for him. He has to give up things in order that we may be blessed with a “Father in Heaven”. The concept that G-d can do what-ever he wants is a most misleading concept. He is devoted to others to a fault; if you want to think of it that way. “For G-d so love the world that he gave his only begotten son.” Why? So we would not parish but have everlasting life. It is all for us.

    The only time he seems to get upset is not when we cause him pain but when we cause ourselves or other to have to suffer, because he loves everybody and watches out for us all. In fact I would summit that he wants to forgive everybody for everything and get everybody back to heaven. The only ones that will not make it are those that just refuse to cooperate, which strangely enough is most people. They won’t live in the best heaven offers because they cannot abide the “goodness” that is so abundant there. They are in essence so selfish that they are miserable immersed in love and service. So he has prepared a place in which we can all be comfortable doing what we want and being what we want.

    The final point is that G-d wants us to be just like him – willing to sacrifice and give up things for others, and this is the whole reason for this mortal existence. It is why things happen the way they do. It is why good always suffers and bad seems to get away with everything. Because we must learn to sacrifice for the benefit of others even when they do not care in order to know G-d as he really is. Without this understanding, the joy of a life of compassionate service is lost and there is misery in all that take advantage of you.

    The Traveler

  7. The question is - What is real; what is precieved or what is? This takes another turn under the theory of quantum mechanics, which implies that any observation alters reality. But if there is no observation how can reality be known. If there is an observation there is also a human effort to relate to something that is thought or believed to be understood. The circle here is comes back to one important point. What can be observed and known and understood in order that we build the knowledge to understand what we do observe?

    The Traveler

  8. Thank you both for your excellent responses. May I drill down a little deeper into you ideas?

    I know a "slow minded" person that is loving beyond fault. I also grew up with a dog as a child that was one of the most loving things I have known. In both cases I respected the love but did not feel a need to worship the one that was so loving. Am I to understand that you will worship anyone that will love with a g-d like love or is there something more or else that is the real trigger of your worship?

    The Traveler

  9. For this is life eternal to know the only true G-d and Jesus Christ who was sent by G-d.

    What is it about G-d that has convinced you to worship or not worship him? What in his character and attributes is it that makes him G-d? Should you, as a believer be an example of that charactor and attribute?

    If you are reborn in G-d how are you convinced you that you are one with G-d? If not what is your opinion about being one with G-d?

    The Traveler

  10. Cal: You are so interesting to me. I was just wondering if you happened to catch the speech by the wife of John Kerry. In an attempt to discredit the current first lady Ms. Kerry accused her of “Never having a real job”.

    I believe Mrs. Bush was a schoolteacher prior to her marriage to George. I was just wondering what you think of someone that publicly declares teaching school is not a “Real job”.

    The Traveler

  11. JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR - Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13 - Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This IS a typical, though sad, example ! of what some who have never served think of the military. But I do not understand why the Democratic party pretends it knows how to run a country. As I have said before - as bad as the Republicians are the Democrats seem to have not clue.

    From the Senat floor:

    Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

    Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... ! To a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!

    You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

    I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a l! ove of country and a dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

    I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

    For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a Senator!

  12. Do we want to force women into dark filthy germ infested alleys to be treated with coat hangers? You know that is what will happen if you out law ------ What did you think would fill in the blank? How about we fill it in with “clean quick sanitary rape and murder in the privacy of your home”.

    When the courts ruled Roe vs. Wade the question and the ruling was that there is no scientific or religious proof suitable in a court of law that a fetus is human life during the first trimester of pregnancy. Under the laws of this country a person must be considered innocent until “Proven” guilty, therefore there can be no guilty verdict until proof of human life. What then is provable human life? Is a person on life support, to no longer to be considered human life? If someone is in need of CPR for survival, is it a crime to deny life saving assistance?

    The standard used in all other cases is “brain dead” meaning the brain in no longer able to respond to any cognitive stimulus. No such standard in a partial birth abortion. Did you know that currently it is legal and called abortion to kill a child as long as the birth process is not complete? The child can be breathing on it own, eyes open and responding to its environment – but if the birth process is not 100% complete the life of that child can legally be taken. And what is the method? In most cases of what is called partial birth abortion, the skull is crushed. There is no administering of any painkiller to the child – just a brutal act. Often the child screams during the process demonstrating they were NOT brain dead.

    And for what reason is such a thing to be allowed? The choice of the mother? It is said that the choice should be left between a doctor and the woman, but a doctor can, by law be denied, license to practice or fired from their employ, in many cases if they refuse to perform the abortion at the request of the woman. It is a lie to say the decision is between a woman and her doctor – an out right lie!

    How can we even think to allow the finger to be placed on the nuclear trigger by someone that will willing support without any question the crushing of the skull of a (very brain alive) child breathing on it own? Let alone someone that promises to never appoint any judge to any level of our courts that does not support 100% without question, such action? What justice can we possibly hope for?

    The Traveler

  13. Originally posted by sgallan@Oct 19 2004, 06:52 AM

    I honestly don't have time to read him at the moment. That is why I was asking. It all sounds very 'pie in the sky'. When it comes to economics the details of such laws are problematic.

    The Law by Frederic can be read in one evening. But something I beleve should be understood - Frederic knew many of the founders of our nation. Those men that risked all in forming our constitution. He believed in the great experiment of our Constitution. There were a number of flaws that he saw in our country. For example slavery he felt would be a major problem that must be ended for freedom and real free economy to have a chance.

    Another Idea he puts forth is that the law should 1. Protect the innocent. 2 Punish the guilty. Law used for any other purpose is unjust.

    Perhaps you can offer some explanation as to why you think such a society living by such laws is problematic. Why should someone else be entitled to plunder that which someone else has produced by their own labor? Is this not in essence what labor unions are all about - or at least should be all about?

    Usually the problem with intelligent thought is when someone wants to make an exception. Sort of the idea since there are 2 survivors and only one life vest - then I want it. This is not what I am saying. It is a matter of someone that made their life vest with materials available to everyone before they got on the ship and now someone that refused to work to build a life vest now in danger seeks the law to plunder the labor of someone else.

    Frederic points out that it takes less effort to plunder than it does to labor, therefore, there will always be pressure to plunder, especially when there is a large population that has been willing to labor. This is exactly what we see in the USA today. A large middle class with a great work ethic and we also see a variety of political ideas that want to plunder the middle class to fund various ends. The truth is - today the middle class is the goose that lays the golden economic egg. If we decide, as a nation to plunder and kill the goose to feed the poor or some other program (when I say kill I mean use the labor without preserving or supporting that class that is providing the labor) – we will destroy the future and run out of golden eggs. And this is exactly what we have seen in the development of the “Great Society” as an experiment beginning in the 60’s. Our government welfare programs have required a steady increase not just in $$$$ but in percent of the GNP. What began as about 2% is now approaching 20%. And poverty has both increased – not just in % of population but in effect on the population, things such as crime, health and fitness, and economic viability. We also see a shrinking middle class and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The exact effect projected by Frederic. Use the law to plunder honest labor and the class that produces will diminish.

    The Democrats want to extract more from the middle class to fund social programs – they say they want to plunder the rich but the truth is there is not near as much to plunder from the rich (they are fewer in numbers) than from the middle class.

    The Republicans want to empower the rich to plunder everyone else in what they call capitol investment. Though they call it free enterprise – that is not true. If I had more time I would outline how Microsoft plundered stacker software in a classic case of how the rich plunder from the labor of the middle class. Perhaps some other time.

    The Traveler

  14. Not my ideas but those of Frederic - I just happen to agree. You may want to read his work. But from my understanding.

    1. Education - in freedom and free enterprise, principles of economics.

    2. Support of laws that do not alow Plunder and protect those that labor.

    3. Repeal of laws that demand plunder and protect those that refuse to labor.

    The Traveler

  15. Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 18 2004, 08:46 PM

    Is it wrong at all for a 20 something male to date a 30 something female? And how about a 50 something male with a 20 something female? Non-LDS of course.

    There is no problem with dating. There is a problem with exploitation. In reality there does not need to be an age difference in order to be exploitation, but for what ever reason it seems to show up most often when there is a large age difference. - my opinion

    The Traveler

  16. I wanted to comment concerning the Democratic and Republican parties as they relate to free enterprise in the US market place. I am a student of Frederic Bastiat. According to his theory there are two ways to obtain wealth. 1. To work hard by your own labor and industry. 2. Plunder wealth from others. Since Plunder requires less effort man will by nature - if given the opportunity select plunder over labor.

    Frederic theorizes there are two kinds of plunder. First Criminal plunder. This is the activity of criminals plundering what others have produced. Second in legal plunder. This is extortion by law taking the production of others. Socialism is a form of legal plunder as is many mislabel capitalized investments. True free enterprise rewards each according to their labor.

    My communist friends in the Democratic Party like Cal and their cousins socialist in the Republican party think there are flaws in honest free enterprise. These are not flaws but misuse by those that call themselves Capitalist - but in reality they are just another kind of Socialist - except they believe only a select few should be allowed to live on the labor of the many. This is not free enterprise but another form of plunder.

    If you need help understanding the principles upon which this country was founded I suggest you purchase Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”. You can get it from Amazon.com for less than $5. If you think you are ready for more try Frederic Bastiat’s book “Economic Fallacies”. No one has the right to plunder the labor of others.

    The Traveler

  17. Originally posted by LLindstrom@Oct 18 2004, 09:02 AM

    Hi everyone... I'm going to be baptised on Wednesday morning :D and just had a couple questions I thought someone might be able to answer. I was going to ask during my interview but we got talking about things and I forgot to ask.

    First, how long after I get baptised until I can receive a patriarchal blessing? I've been searching for this info but haven't been able to find it. And also, how long until I can be married in the temple? Is it a year? What kinds of callings are good for new members? How soon until I will get a calling?

    Thanks so much guys!

    You should be able to have a calling right away. Make sure it is understood you are ready to accept a calling - make a covenant promise now with the Lord to do what ever he ask of you.

    Going to the temple may take a while. If you are not going on a mission or getting married or are currently married; preparing for the temple will take longer than a year.

    Receiving a Patriarchal Blessing is between you and your bishop. I suggest you take your time. If you feel you need a blessing to help you right away - ask your home teachers or Bishop for a Priesthood blessing.

    Being a new member I suggest (in addition to scripture) you read Talmage "Jesus The Christ" and "Articles of Faith". Also read Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness".

    The Traveler

  18. Cal: If Kerry is a Marxist, then Bush is a Nazi! Both characterizations are extreme distortions of reality.

    Me: It always amazes me how liberals distort truth. If you were really informed you would realize that Nazi’s are Socialists - granted Bush comes close because he is not a real conservative but there is a greater problem problem. Nazi’s are also nationalistic. The Bush border policy does not qualify Bush as a Nazi. The fact is Nazi’s were Left wing socialists. True conservatism is not socialism - Communist mislabel their enemies as part of their “Big Lie” attempting to distance their brand of socialism from that of the Nazi’s..

    Cal: First, I'm really not much interested in what the Communist party of the United States has to say. I'm sure it is an insignificant fringe group, and there is no shortage of them. Secondly, if this party has the same platform as the democrats, then whoopy for them. (Perhaps we should tell them to go get their own positions on issues and stop copying the democrats.) I make no apology for the fact that some goofy fringe group has the good sense to follow the democrats.

    I suspect what you are really doing is trying to tie the democrats to the Marxist ideology. Preposterous. Marx hated capitalism. Democrats don't oppose capitalism--we do want to make sure that the abuses of capitalism are kept under some kind of reasonable control.

    Frankly, I really have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse Kerry of being a Marxist. And I don't think you actually do either. If you want to convince me that you have a clue, then bring up a specific issue, and let's have at it.

    Me: Ignorance is such bliss. Following is a pre World War II document circulated to the communist party in the United States of America which outlines their activity over the last 80 years:

    A. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness.

    B. Get control of all means of publicity thereby:

    1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities.

    2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance.

    3. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding them up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy.

    4. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible.

    5. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent.

    6. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders.

    7. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

    C. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless.

    Now from a World Net daily news article by Hal Lindsey:

    In the aftermath of Election 2000, angry partisan Democrats vowed to do everything in their power to make the Bush presidency a failure and to defeat him in 2004 "by whatever means necessary."

    In the process, they've managed to undermine voter confidence in our election system to the degree that the State Department has asked the Europeans to monitor this election for fairness. They've managed to convince voters that the election isn't fair because the voting machines are suddenly too complicated for old people and minorities.

    There have been endless stories about Florida this year and how to avoid a "repeat of Election 2000" by improving the voting system.

    While nothing is idiot-proof, old people and minorities managed to elect Bill Clinton twice using the same equipment. It didn't need to be overhauled until it somehow misfired and elected George Bush instead. No matter how many times they recounted, George Bush still got more votes than Al Gore. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the voting equipment.

    Nothing appears to be above exploitation. John Kerry even dedicated a speech he delivered on Monday to the late actor Christopher Reeve. Kerry said he knew the "Superman" actor for about 15 years through family and dedication to the same causes, and said Reeve left him a long voice-mail on Saturday thanking him for campaigning on the possibilities of a cure for conditions like his.

    It had been originally reported that Reeve died on Sunday after slipping into a coma on Thursday following complications from treatment for a bed sore. After John Kerry's speech, reports of Reeve's death were changed to remove the reference to Thursday in order to make it possible for Reeve to call John Kerry and leave a long message for him on his answering machine on Saturday night. Evidently, Kerry didn't know about the "coma" part until after the speech, but his well-oiled damage-control team was already on it.

    A blogger on Free Republic provided one example of the "before and after" media manipulation that kept John Kerry from having another "Christmas in Cambodia" moment like the ones that keep coming up every time he tries to exploit the dead.

    And if exploitation, media manipulation and outright lies don't work, how about voter intimidation? GOP Chairman Marc Racicot issued, as part of a GOP press release, a copy of a letter he sent to the president of the AFL-CIO. As of yesterday morning, the only place you can read it is a website in Spain.

    In it, Racicot asked organized labor to end its campaign of violence against Bush-Cheney political offices and Bush supporters. Among the incidents cited by Racicot:

    A coordinated labor protest at more than a dozen campaign and party headquarters across the country.

    In one protest in Orlando, the office was vandalized and one campaign worker had their arm broken in the melee.

    In Canton, Ohio, a Bush-Cheney '04 staffer was forced to lock herself in an office while another break-in was in progress.

    Gunshots were fired into Bush-Cheney '04 offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee, windows broken in West Virginia and campaign staffers threatened.

    In Wisconsin, a supporter of the president had a swastika burned into his front yard simply because he had a Bush-Cheney '04 lawn sign.

    Disinformation, voter fraud, organized violence, outright lies, exploitation and media manipulation. Those were the principle tools used by the Nazis to bring Hitler to power in 1933 Germany.

    Me Again: Now some more about Kerry: He has never attempted to distance his stand from that of the Communist Party Of the United States of America. Not during the Viet Nam conflict and not since. He never gave names, specific dates or specific places of US war crimes but with only innuendo attempted to implicate all US service men and never once ever criticized the communist in Viet Nam - ever. His efforts in behalf of the communist inspired the communist of North Viet Nam to erect a special memorial honoring Kerry. Twice he met with the Communist in Paris during peace talks - both times while still an officer of the US military and contrary to military law and while the US was still in conflict. The Kerry campaign while accusing Bush of keeping his military records secret have kept secret the military records of Kerry’s court martial following these events only disclosing a re-discharge in 2001. And Dan Rather has never made any comment to encourage Kerry disclosure.

    Let me also state that I am not a Republican - I left that party over criminal action taking place during the Nixon years. I believe if America had any idea what the Republican party was doing to America, the citizens of this country would drag the party heads into the streets and execute them. But for every evil the Republicans have done the Democrats have done 10. There is a reason no one knows Kerry political plans of socialized employment, health care, retirement and economic control. It is all part of the plan of Communism to end freedom and free enterprise in America.

    The Traveler

  19. Originally posted by Cal@Oct 10 2004, 07:02 PM

    If you do not think Kerry is a Marxist in support of Communist policy - please take the time to visit the Communist Party’s website and point out an article at that site, to which Kerry has an opposing opinion. I would like to believe that the communist have not penetrated the Democratic party to the extent that they could have one of their own rise to such power and run for president. At least visit and tell me who is freedom and democracy and the enemy of Communism - Bush or Kerry?

    The Traveler

    Traveler--now I KNOW you are cracked. In case you hadn't noticed, calling someone a Communist went out of vogue about 15 years ago. Get current dude!

    If Kerry is a Marxist, then Bush is a Nazi! Both characterizations are extreme distortions of reality.

    Up until one week ago the Communist Party listed Kerry as their Party choice for President at their website. A political problem I am sure. But you have not pointed out the difference between the Kerry positions and that of the Communist Party of the United States.

    In fact I can't tell the difference between your stand and that of the Communist Party. Why not do us all a favor and visit the site and tell us how you differ?

    Afraid to admit it?

    The Traveler

  20. Perhaps the delusion Ray has over Bush being a good president is because Ray is comparing Bush to Bill Clinton (the most celebrated and documented liar since Hitler to ever be elected to power in the free world).

    Or maybe he is comparing the warped Bush to the even greater disaster, John Kerry. In that Kerry and his Marxist ideas (this including all other registered candidate’s platforms) is by choice the enemy of freedom and democracy , and most closely resembles the ideology of the Communist Party of America (which has sought for the destruction of freedom and democracy for more that 3/4 of this century. For reference you can visit the website of the Communist Party of America at <www.cpusa.org>

    If you do not think Kerry is a Marxist in support of Communist policy - please take the time to visit the Communist Party’s website and point out an article at that site, to which Kerry has an opposing opinion. I would like to believe that the communist have not penetrated the Democratic party to the extent that they could have one of their own rise to such power and run for president. At least visit and tell me who is freedom and democracy and the enemy of Communism - Bush or Kerry?

    The Traveler

  21. How soon do we forget what is not advantageous to our political agenda. Following is a quote from Anthony Lake’s book “6 Nightmares”:

    *Iraq has declared that it possesses thousands of gallons of anthrax and botulism toxin, enough to wipe out the population of the Earth several times over. It also has four metric tons of VX-a nerve agent so deadly that a single drop can kill.

    Who is this Anthony Lake spewing such a lie about Iraq and WMD’s. I quote from his bio:

    Anthony Lake served as national security advisor to President Clinton from 1993 to 1996. He first joined the State Department in 1962, eventually serving as an aide to Henry Kissinger, and returned to the department in the Carter Administration. He is currently a professor at Georgetown University and lectures extensively across the country.

    How interesting that Anthony is not among the Democrats accusing President Bush of lying about WMD’s in Iraq. Interesting too that he was the leading expert (not a expert but the leading expert) of such things during the Clinton administration. I would also point out that in 1996 he was nominated by Clinton for head of the CIA, but the Republicans in the Senate blocked the nomination for strictly political reasons – Anthony upset over politics withdrew his name. Can anyone even think of the conservative Republicans placing politics over security of our nation’s citizens? - No more than the compassionate liberal Democrats would sacrifice the lives of innocent children for their politics.

    I would point out three things concerning Anthony’s declaration. First that he draws attention to the Biological and chemical WMD in Iraq after the first “Gulf War” when the UN was attempting to oversee the destruction of WMD’s in Iraq. Which brings us to the second point: There is not a single indication of the slightest shred of evidence of any attempts by Iraq to ever destroy any WMD’s or WMD production capability by the UN or anyone else. The third point concerns Iraq use of WMD’s on at least 3 separate occasions. When the above statement was made, Iraq had ample time to continue to produce even more WMD’s than were ever used. Even taking into account the Gulf war destroying WMD production capability there is still enough production time to more than replace any WMD’s that were known to have been used. In other words there was greater time to produce WMD’s after the last known use compared to the time needed to have produced them for use.

    The political question asked now in our current election environment - is why Bush lied about WMD’s in order to start the war – since none were found (not true because some – but very little – were found) in Iraq. But the problem behind this stupid claim of a Bush lie is that Bush did not hatch the lie about WMD’s – if it is a lie, Clinton would be the liar that planted it and cultivated it in his administration. If we can believe anything from the Clinton administration we can wonder tonight as we go to sleep => Since the Clinton administration said (and the Bush administration agreed – a rare thing in politics) Iraq had WMD’s sufficient to kill the population of the entire earth – SEVERAL TIMES OVER – And since no one seems to know what happened to any of the WMD’s (or for that matter even cares), could any or even the smallest fraction of these biological and chemical agents have found there way into the hands of organizations with desires to smuggle them into the USA for use against our population? And in full view of current politics – who’s fault will that be? Who is arguing that there is no possibility, what-so-ever, of any WMD’s from Iraq to have any connection to organizations intent on using them in the USA? They are asking you to bet you life and freedom on it in the upcoming election – divided on this issue mostly on party lines. Why the division now when it was once one of the few things agreed upon between the two previous administrations?

    I am not a fan of Bush or the Republican party – he is not a good president and the Republican party, as well as the Democratic Party, are nothing more that power brokers for those that delight in exercising power over citizens. But what I cannot understand is, in this question of national security – why is it that so many offer their freedom and life to those that claim there is no concern over the missing WMD’s from Iraq. Such stupidity is just too much of a bad example of blind politics and the core of how 9/11 could happen or be used or forgotten in favor of political agendas. But then Anthony and I are obviously misinformed in this matter. Dan Rather is a much better source to trust – He and other such types are careful guardians of truth and can be trusted to never misuse their standing to give false impressions to favor their political agendas.

    The Traveler

  22. Originally posted by curvette@Sep 25 2004, 01:26 PM

    Oh Trav--I completely agree with you here! (It won't ever happen, but we would most definitey have a fairer, more representative government with the scenario you propose instead of these career politicians.)

    Curvette: Thank you - I am pleased when someone that usually disagrees with me finds something to agree with. You are right - I have worked for years and it will never happen.

    The Traveler