'The War Is Not Over'

John_Schuylkill County_Pa wrote:

Can you say Paul Ryan?

John_Schuylkill County_Pa wrote:

Can you say Paul Ryan?

past blast wrote:

<quoted text>Yes we can!!
he hee
Onion crop spectacular!!!!!!

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Alors, maybe making him president and Romney vice president might be the ticket.
As Romney concluded his introduction, he said to the enthusiastic crowd:
"Join me in welcoming the next president of the United States, Paul Ryan."
For a moment, there was silence, as the crowd tried to process what they had just heard, no doubt wondering if their ears were working correctly, and if Romney had, once again, flubbed an important campaign event. Answer, yes he had.
http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-s-ulti...

Paul wrote:

1. That is why true Muslims destroyed the dome of prophet Muhammad's house. They did not want to idol worship.

2. No, JESUS wants all humans to believe and follow HIM. GOD certainly knows what is in the hearts of Men and Woman, and will judge fairly on the last day.

3. Thanks again for educating me on Hadith. It reminds me of the Jewish Tulmud and Mishnah which was also passed down orally and then written years later.

Sorry about the word Wahabi. Seems too me there is much in common with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as some differences.

John_PA wrote:

<quoted text>After Z there are no more letters

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
1. I do not know what are you trying to prove here. There is no command from our prophet to construct any building on any grave.
And the house where prophet used to live in Madina is already absorbed in the prophet’s mosque. So in reality, there is no house of prophet in Madina which is present. He never built any house for himself. There were small chambers for his wives, in which he used to live. All those small chambers are now part of the prophet’s Mosque.
I find it strange, you trying to educate me on islamic history and relics left by our prophet.
2. Jesus’ mission was not for entire human kind, his mission was only to the “Lost sheep of the house of Israel” as he told expressively not once but many times.
But irrespective of that any one who sincerely follows teachings of Jesus and does not expressively reject the Last and Final prophet from God would get their reward from God.
3.Why only Talmud and Mishnah? Most of the world’s scriptures were first transmitted orally and then written down.
Are you sure Moses could have written those five books of Bible which we see in our times.
It was only Quran which was transmitted both in written form and orally.
4. I am happy that you understood. There is nothing like Wahabi in Islam. There is no one who calls himself as Wahabi.
It is a nick name which some people try to pinpoint on some people and use it as a sort of insult and abuse.
4A. There are lots and lots of things common between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Islam was the term used by the past prophets, Judaism and Christianity are the terms which people concocted themselves and got divided into different religions.
I wish you continue this discussion in the same spirit of learning and getting to know each other.

Neville Thompson wrote:

<quoted text>
What would Allah do ?

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Which their or usurper would "like" to return their ill gained wealth or property?
It is only natural.
They need to be "evicted" as was done by Nebuchadnezzar in 6th Century BC and by Romans in 70 CE...
Or some harsher punishment this time, so they never even think of coming back?
One Thing is Certain, the Promised Land was not absolute, it was part of a deal, that Jews shall walk in the way of God and Do as He commands and then they will get the land. But once they broke their part of the Covenant, then the land shall be taken from their hands and given to others who shall walk in the ways of God.
Allah Knows the Best.

MUQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Ans.
1. I do not know what are you trying to prove here. There is no command from our prophet to construct any building on any grave.
And the house where prophet used to live in Madina is already absorbed in the prophet’s mosque. So in reality, there is no house of prophet in Madina which is present. He never built any house for himself. There were small chambers for his wives, in which he used to live. All those small chambers are now part of the prophet’s Mosque.
I find it strange, you trying to educate me on islamic history and relics left by our prophet.
2. Jesus’ mission was not for entire human kind, his mission was only to the “Lost sheep of the house of Israel” as he told expressively not once but many times.
But irrespective of that any one who sincerely follows teachings of Jesus and does not expressively reject the Last and Final prophet from God would get their reward from God.
3.Why only Talmud and Mishnah? Most of the world’s scriptures were first transmitted orally and then written down.
Are you sure Moses could have written those five books of Bible which we see in our times.
It was only Quran which was transmitted both in written form and orally.
4. I am happy that you understood. There is nothing like Wahabi in Islam. There is no one who calls himself as Wahabi.
It is a nick name which some people try to pinpoint on some people and use it as a sort of insult and abuse.
4A. There are lots and lots of things common between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Islam was the term used by the past prophets, Judaism and Christianity are the terms which people concocted themselves and got divided into different religions.
I wish you continue this discussion in the same spirit of learning and getting to know each other.

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
Nixon killed 70,000 civilians in Vietnam that’s twice as many as Castro in Cuba
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

arbitrageur wrote:

Sharia law and justice descends on rebel held Syria.
No Geneva Convention here, is there?
I'm wondering why Big O would arm rebels he couldn't really tolerate morally.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-...

Dave C wrote:

<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_inv...
Why did you communist kill more people in the last 100 years than any other group???

butterfly effect wrote:

<quoted text>
regards frankster,
i've watched his international blunder with interest. perhaps it's not obvious, but man has a potential… to instigate revolution.

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Why blame me when you can't answer the question?
Why do you hate the ones that made it on their own?

arbitrageur wrote:

Sharia law and justice descends on rebel held Syria.
No Geneva Convention here, is there?
I'm wondering why Big O would arm rebels he couldn't really tolerate morally.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-...

arbitrageur wrote:

The statistics are rolling in. The books will be written.
Obama Recovery Is Worst In Post WWII History
A core dispute in this presidential campaign is over how to evaluate President Obama's economic record.
On the one hand, it's not fair to blame Obama for the slow growth in the first six months of his presidency, which was mostly a product of conditions he inherited.
On the other hand, it's not convincing for Obama to suggest — as he routinely does — that he should be evaluated on the basis of whether the recovery has been better than the recession. Recoveries, by definition, are better than recessions.
So rather than holding Obama responsible for a recession he inherited, or praising him simply because that recession didn't continue perpetually, the fairest measure of his economic stewardship is this one:
How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?
On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.
Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.
During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2%— less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.
http://news.investors.com/article/621175/2012...

Sandy wrote:

<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_...

arbitrageur wrote:

<quoted text>
Why blame me when you can't answer the question?
Why do you hate the ones that made it on their own?

arbitrageur wrote:

One of my initial very radical plans (2009, perhaps) is now being considered, since regular quantitative easing is an abject failure. Not sure if this has to do with my classic liberal approach to economics, or not.
No longer a joke, notably.
Suddenly, quantitative easing "for the people" seems possible
Last week I discussed in this column the idea that the vast amounts of money created by central banks and distributed for free to banks and bond funds – equivalent to $6,000 per man, woman and child in America and £6,500 in Britain – should instead be given directly to citizens, who could spend or save it as they pleased. I return to this theme so soon because radical ideas about monetary policy suddenly seem to be gaining traction. Some of the world’s most powerful central bankers – Mario Draghi of the European Central Bank last Thursday, Eric Rosengren of the Boston Fed on Monday and Mervyn King of the Bank of England this Wednesday – are starting to admit that the present approach to creating money, known as quantitative easing, is failing to generate economic growth. Previously taboo ideas can suddenly be mentioned.
Rosengren, for example, suggested that the Fed should expand the money supply without any limit as long it sees unnecessary unemployment. Draghi has similarly promised to spend whatever it takes to prevent a euro breakup, although politically his ability to do this remains in doubt. Most interesting was a speech by Adair Turner, chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority and leading contender to be the next governor of the Bank of England. This speech strongly challenged the pervasive complacency of central bankers and called for new ideas that might combine central-bank money creation with government decision making on how to bypass banks and inject this money into the non-financial economy of consumption, investment and jobs.
The radical alternative discussed here last week – QE for the People (or QEP, for short)– would bypass banks completely by distributing newly created money straight to the public. It is not yet on anyone’s agenda, but neither is it any longer dismissed as a joke.
http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/201...
Of course, I expect Frankly, MacRango, and Sandy to firmly object.