Posted on 11/17/2009 6:46:44 AM PST by topcat54
that sort of thing is certainly marching forward per their design and schedule. It’s not clear when they will insure the final collapse . . . just as it’s not sure when they will really flip the switch ON for WWIII
LOL.
You’re such a Dear.
LUB!
Love you Quix!
OOOOOOOOPS
SOUNDS LIKE THE SOVEREIGNTY SURRENDER IS BACK ON:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/18/stories/2009111857470100.htm
U.S., China revive hopes of deal at climate talks
Ananth Krishnan
Hu, Obama for pact that will include binding emission cuts for developed countries, mitigation activities for others
TOWARDS CONSENSUS: Chinese President Hu Jintao escorts U.S. President Barack Obama past a guard of honour at a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Tuesday.
BEIJING: The United States and China have lent their support to achieving a legally-binding agreement at the Copenhagen climate talks next month, reviving hopes of a deal being reached.
After talks between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, the two countries said in a joint statement they would support a deal that would include binding reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for developed countries, and “nationally appropriate” mitigation activities for developing countries.
“Our aim there... is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect,” Mr. Obama said.
Chances of reaching a deal that will impose binding emission targets appear to have receded in recent weeks. Lowering expectations, many countries have suggested that a political statement, and not a binding agreement, was the more likely outcome.
On Sunday, leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Singapore, including Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu, played down chances of a deal. But the two leaders on Tuesday struck a different note, voicing strong support for a “comprehensive” agreement that would “rally the world.”
########################
I gather that for naysaying FREEPERS, even, the facts of such globalist tyranny are just not real nor important to them. I wonder when it might become important to them. AT the demand that they receive the chip implant MOTBeast to get health care? In the line waiting for the guillotine? When?
I’m not feeling any of the Chesed of Yah'shua in these comments. I sense the hypocrite monster at work.
We as followers of the Christ are required to recognize the "signs" of the times starting in Matthew 24:32 discussing the Fig Tree.
Anyone who suggests a date for Christ’s return is a false teacher. That we know for sure.
Still, a huge majority DO.
What's the saying, "I'd rather die in my sleep like my 90 year old grandfather, than the three screaming people in the car he was driving."
This is a perfectly good scoffer/Scripture denial thread
< patiently>Noooooo,< /patiently> not at all.
Not scripture denial, but a denial of your interpretation. Not the same thing at all.
I am, for instance, right now re-listening to a fascinating lecture on Daniel.
The term “replacement theology” (Quixie’s "replacementarian") is a boogeyman term invented by radical dispensationalists to scare their “true believers” from straying from the fold. It is often used by those who throw the term “anti-Semite” around wrt those with whom they disagree. It is a boogeyman term insofar it was invented by those who are offended by an alternative (i.e., biblical) construction regarding the relationship between Israel and the Church. I.e., it was invented by dispensationalists to pejoratively label all non-dispensationalists. What it refers to, in reality, is anyone who disagrees with these radical futurists on their errant views of Israel vis-à-vis the Church. If you are not a Zionist or someone who sees benefit in racial distinctions, according to their definition, then you must subscribe to “replacement theology.”
For a view of the truth, read Expansion, Not Replacemment.
Quick question, my hyper-literalist friend. Where exactly is the “throne of King David” located right this very minute? Can you take us to it?
It’s sooooooooo
welcome when you post mangled dictionary stuff.
Helps emphasize how hollow and disconnected from reality the REPLACEMENTARIAN/SHREDDED BIBLE perspective
REALLY IS.
The stupid...it hurts!
If these neutrinos were powerful enough to melt the Earth's core, why didn't they vaporize everything and everybody on the Earth's surface on their way there?
And for that matter, just how do stone-age Mayans manage to predict a solar flare centuries in their future?
Still dealing with your abduction by aliens I see.
Sad to see your clique is still into bearing false witness.
Thanks for the ping!
Does the clique have seriouis classes and training in chronic lying
or is it
‘just’ an idle hobby?
I'm not the one you need to be patient with.
I've seen an article posted by one of your contemporaries, fairly recently, as a reply in an article that detailed ongoing plans for rebuilding the Jewish Third Temple, which is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, claiming that the Temple will never be rebuilt.
Don't tell me this thread doesn't deny Scripture.
INDEED.
The clique has a habit of
—DENYING SCRIPTURE
—DENYING UNSHREDDED DICTIONARY
—DENYING UNSHREDDED HISTORIES
—DENYING FACTUALY NEWS REPORTS
—DENYING LOGIC
And still they think folks should pay attention to and give heed to their drivel.
Amazing.
You mean like the way you insisted a while back that I was a woman? That kind of lying?
FUTURIST FANTASY ALERT!!!
There is no rebuilt Jewish Third Temple in the Bible. That is a myth of futurist dispensational literalism.
People can plan all sorts of nonsensical things. They can plan to fly to the moon and dine on green cheese. That does not mean that nonsensical plans comport with Bible prophecy. Only in the fantasy world of futurist dispensationalism do such plans have any theological significance.
My wording was tentative, a likelihood, possibility, probability etc.
That’s quite DIFFERENT from a brazenly flat statement of ‘fact’ that’s 100% untrue.
I gather your dictionary does not have tentative in it?
I also noted that another FREEPER, who likely knew, asserted such.
I also enjoyed tweaking you around the issue. So, are you insisting that you are not? Thanks for the clarification. Couldn’t get you to clarify it then.
Very fascinating how we read and use language so DIFFERENTLY.
Sounds like that old SAME/DIFFERENT problem that naysayers seem to have soooooooooooo much trouble with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.