In my opinion, I highly doubt it but I do believe with absolute certainty that President Johnson
was guilty up to his eyebrows with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Sex, lies, and videotape.
I hate to think it, but does anyone suspect that Bush might have
been involved in causing 9/11? I didn't think that when it happened, he
seemed genuinely upset, and stepped up to take action. That's why I'm
wondering now. Cuz that attack basically made him acceptable and
respected by America. What are anyone's thoughts on this.
I'm not saying I think he was involved, but conspiracy is always
hiding somewhere in the government and politics. Even if the President
doesn't know it.
-Angelique
RollinOn wrote:
>
>
You know I was a Bush supporter until I opened my eyes and started
researching the Big Picture.It turned out I was wrong about Bush
because he was lying to all of us. We had no threat from Saddam and
they knew it.Mustard gas has a shelf life of 2 months so that was
useless even if he had any.He had nothing to threaten Americans at all
except a dislike for us.He knew if he tried anything we'd do exactly
what we've done and remove him from power and you can bet he didn't
want that.We had him right where we wanted him.This war isn't about
WMD's like we were told it's about oil and their plan to get Democracy
in the Middle East which isn't a bad thing but the way it was done had
extremely poor judgement and has cost us lots of American lives and
shattered our position as World Leaders. We started a war and from
looks of things it's turned into WW3. Here's a dvd you'll find
interesting.Uncovered: The Truth about the war in Iraq.It interviews
CIA officials General and Inspectors and many more. Mark
-------Original Message-------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07/23/06 18:59:51
To:
[email protected] Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Viewing the "Big Picture"
Bush jumped at Sadam to finish what his daddy started - Very few
yelled at GHWB in '91 . Sadam was the biggest bully in the area
blowing all sorts of rhetoric at us - he needed spanking. It seemed
it would be 'free'.O'C In a message dated 7/23/2006 4:03:59 P.M. US
Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your right on Dave! Nature has to take its coarse, if every embryo
became a human the world would be so over populated no one could
servive. Were already on the road to self destruction, hell if nature
took it's coarse none of us quads would alive to worry about stem
cells. Don't get me wrong I won't to walk again, and im glad for
modern medicine that save so many lives. Think about it! Not so long
ago when someone was critical there was no cure so nature took it's
coarse. I think Bush doesn't won't to see a cure , same way as he's
put so many in harms way all over the world. Nature means less
population! Silas
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[email protected] Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [QUAD-L] Viewing the "Big Picture"
Jim,How do you feel about us killing cows and chickens to eat? What
about euthanizing dogs and cats at the pound to control the
population? Do rats and monkeys fall into the protected group? How
about killing flys and mosquitoes - they feed the larger animals you
know. In a related point - our Catholic priest said today birth control
like condoms, creams and IUDs are a violation of God's natural law but
family size can be regulated by practicing abstinence during times of
fertility. He didn't cover vasectomies or tubal ligations but I think
those would be considered violations of natural law as well. As long as
'God's natural law' is the topic, where do you think artificial
resuscitation figures in? If you blow somebody's lungs up a few times
and he comes out of it is that different than breathing for him the
rest of his life? The lines get pretty fuzzy.DaveP.S. I believe in the
natural law that the strongest survive and the rest are at their
mercy. In a message dated 7/23/2006 2:15:12 P.M. US Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 01:27 PM 7/23/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not ok to kill people. We are talking about exploiting the
availability of human tissue. Just stem cells. These are not and never
will be humans. These are unassigned cells. They have no thoughts, no
ambitions, no sense of self, and most importantly, no womb.
If I gave you all the pieces of a an automobile, you would not own a
car. Even a good mechanic would only own junk because of the lack of
tools. It isn't the big picture, its the small minds.
john
Just another thought about what should be considered "a human life". At
this point in time, I do believe that a human egg and human sperm make
a human being from the time they are joined, from that point the zygote
contains all the 46 chromosomes need to be human and it continues to
develop.
When NASA scientist talk about "life on Mars" they are talking about
microscopic bacteria.
ALH84001 - The Life on Mars meteorite
On August 7, 1996, an historic press conference was held at NASA
Headquarters in Washington DC. News that scientists had found
evidence of life in a Mars meterorite had leaked out, and NASA had
to make an announcement. A few minutes before, President Clinton
made these remarks at the White House before heading out on a trip
to California:
"This is the product of years of exploration and months
of intensive study by some of the world's most distinguished
scientists. Like all discoveries, this one will and should
continue to be reviewed, examined and scrutinized. It must be
confirmed by other scientists... I am determined that the
American space program will put its full intellectual power
and technological prowess behind the search for further
evidence of life on Mars."
At the press conference, several scientists from NASA and Stanford
University announced their findings -- they confirmed that they
had found evidence of ancient, fossilized, microscopic life from a
Martian meteorite, known as ALH84001.
Implications of Mars Life
While the life they talked about was only microscopic, it has
several implications for us macroscopic creatures. If life on Mars
is ever proven to exist (or have existed at some point in time),
it would mean that the creation of life is not something that
happens because of freak chance or divine influence, but is in
fact a probable occurrence given the right conditions. Even
further, if all that life requires is an aqueous solution like
liquid water to grow and thrive (which is the current theory),
then the universe is literally teeming with life. The suspected
liquid water oceans on some of Jupiter's moons (Europa and
Callisto) could be filled with life, and life could still be
present underneath the Martian surface, where liquid water and
thermal energy are still present.
(source:
http://www.marsnews.com/focus/life/ )
No one called those scientist "nuts" or "lunatics". President Clinton
called them "some of the world's most distinguished scientists."
If that's what scientist consider "life" then why not, on the basis of
a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo - from the
moment of the union of the gametes - should be considered a human being
with a well defined identity? (paraphrased from the document
"Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20000824_cellule-staminali_en.html ).
Given the right conditions, the human embryo will continue to develop
and grow.
----
Jim Lubin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://makoa.org/jim
disAbility Resources:
http://www.makoa.org Please Help: Inkjet & Toner Cartridge Recycling
Dave
www.daveoconnell.com c3-inc-1967
Dave
www.daveoconnell.com c3-inc-1967
>
