Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $28,695
Woo hoo!! And the first 32% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by stryker

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Soccer Headgear: Does It Do Any Good?

    11/27/2004 12:36:55 PM PST · 32 of 53
    stryker to agere_contra

    I've coached soccer both competitively and recreationally for fifteen years. I have no doubt but that most injuries are caused by poor coaching and poor officiating. A properly executed header will not cause a concussion and will not even hurt. The best change that could be made in soccer today--eliminate the shoot-out to resolve tie games and instead pull both keepers from the field and play golden goal.


  • EU constitution to reference Islam?

    01/19/2004 5:56:49 AM PST · 36 of 73
    stryker to thequest
    But what has Islam done for us lately?
  • Rush's Attorney Roy Black on Scarborough Country

    01/15/2004 2:25:55 PM PST · 38 of 46
    stryker to AlwaysLurking
    What should be of political concern to us regarding Rush's situation is that even a man of his standards can be driven to doctor shopping and addiction because of the failure of the medical system to properly treat pain. This failure is a direct result of the policy of the DEA to attempt to bust any doctor that prescribes more pain relievers than are prescribed on average by his peers. Doctors are afraid of being disciplined or arrested so they refuse to properly treat pain, resulting in the patient going to more than one doctor in search of relief.

    What most people do not know is that pain patients can be safely medicated with heavy doses of opiates these days and then weaned off of the opiates. If the patient cannot be weaned off, there is a new drug on the market, which the FDA refuses to allow doctors to use for the purpose of treating addiction, that completely weans the patient with virtually no side affects within about one week. It is called ibuprenorphine. Currently, it is only legal to use on chronic pain patients. But it is non-abusable, as powerful as morphine, and easily weaned from. Meanwhile, it completely blocks the effects of any opiates the patient may attempt to take.

    We need the federal and state governments out of medicine and that is what Rush's problem demonstrates.

  • Onward Muslim Soldiers

    01/05/2004 7:23:57 PM PST · 10 of 24
    stryker to elcid1970
    If the author is correct, and my reading of the Koran confirms that he is, then we are entering into the beginning of global warfare: WWIII. The Koran is to our generation what Mein Kampf was to the greatest generation--a blueprint for all to see that our enemy's fundamental ideology calls for our destruction. I know quite a few Muslims and find them to be enjoyable and outgoing friends. They maintain a certain naivete that is quite charming. But they practice their religion like the typical Christian--when it is convenient. This is the Islamic middle class. However, as world terrorist events and counterstrikes increase and Western and pro-Western states begin to suppress the Islamic middle class, more and more Muslims will turn to the Koran for instruction and find that armed domination of the West is the call of their Holy Book and their Prophet. It is when this middle class begins to "walk their talk" that all hell will break loose. The sooner we recognize these facts, the smaller our losses will be.
  • Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

    11/18/2003 4:05:50 PM PST · 283 of 286
    stryker to ModelBreaker
    I can't disagree with a point that you made. I am trained in Christian marital counseling by the Assemblies of God. My point is that there has become way too much "Americanism" in what is called Christianity today. There is nothing special about America that gives it some saintly status that so many Christians think it has. In my heart, it has a political status that borders on what would be sainthood in Christianity, but it has no more grace, nor forgiveness, nor reprieve, than any other country. It is merely a form of organized force which Christians should reject with ease as a force to use to obtain Christian ends. Once we take that path, we stand with the Jews and cry out for the release of Barrabas--political force to change the world, and we reject the messianic method of change--self sacrifice as proof of God's love of all mankind, and faith that the Holy Spirit will abide in those that witness that sacrifice.
  • Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

    10/31/2003 5:01:50 PM PST · 261 of 286
    stryker to DPB101
    "Give us Barrabas!" Any use of governmental power is relying on force rather than the Holy Spirit. When the Jews called for the release of the violent revolutionary rather than the miracle working but peaceful Messiah, they committed the same mistake that the Christian right does. God's plan is delineated in no uncertain terms in the Bible. Go forth and convert the nations. Then let the Holy Spirit do what it will. When you join together with other Christians to take political power you are neglecting your first and only calling--to minister the death and resurrection of our Savior. And in doing so, you stand with the Jews and scream out for the release of Barrabas! You seek to force political change and not spiritual change.
  • Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

    10/31/2003 4:48:29 PM PST · 260 of 286
    stryker to ModelBreaker
    No, I meant exactly what I said, which was not difficult to understand. The Bible does not establish what "traditional family values" are and therefore, what the Christian right calls traditional family values are American but not Christian. The families in the Bible are not to be emulated, as they are all dysfunctional.
  • Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

    07/31/2003 5:08:15 PM PDT · 223 of 286
    stryker to DPB101
    The agenda of the Christian right. I don't necessarily disagree with many of their positions, especially those against abortion and supporting the traditional family, but that does not make them any less misdirected in trying to use state power rather than spiritual power to further their cause. As to those values being "Christian," they have chosen the label: not I. The families in the Bible are noticeably disfunctional, so I don't see why the traditional American family structure is a Christian value. But they have termed it such.
  • Gibson's gaffe. Mel Gibson needs to take a history class.

    07/30/2003 10:05:44 PM PDT · 89 of 286
    stryker to DPB101
    You forget that the Jews were given the choice to free Barrabas, the political savior, from the death penalty, or to free Jesus, and they chose Barrabas. Once Jesus made it clear that His revolution did not come by changing the government, He lost His thousands and remained with only a handful of followers. It was with His resurrection that His followers began to understand and return to belief in His way. (Which did in fact conquer Rome without a drop of Roman blood being shed within a mere two and a half centuries).

    Those Christians in today's society that seek political power to impose Christian values are doing nothing more than screaming "Barrabas!" once again, and leaving the Savior to be crucified. They are the Jews sacrificing their true Savior for a chance to overthrow Rome. But our duty is and always will be to humbly spread the good news and let the Holy Spirit deal with the results.

  • Dispute Simmers Over Web Site Posting Personal Data on Police

    07/15/2003 6:25:19 PM PDT · 310 of 321
    stryker to CWOJackson
    How do you think Cochran won the Simpson trial? He caught the lead detective lying. You are just burying your head in the sand. That is much easier than facing a hard truth. I like cops. I hate what the suppression rule has done to them. But once you start lying over little things, it becomes more and more easy.
  • Dispute Simmers Over Web Site Posting Personal Data on Police

    07/11/2003 10:51:07 PM PDT · 103 of 321
    stryker to CWOJackson
    I don't know if cops are trained to lie on the stand, but after fifteen years of criminal defense, most in the defense of first degree murder cases, I concluded that about 90% of them do in fact lie on the witness stand. Knowing that they would lie was one of my most powerful weapons. For instance, if my client was staggeringly drunk and clearly not able to understand his rights, and the eye witnesses stated that the perp reaked of alcohol, I would file a motion to suppress the confession knowing that the cops would come to the deposition and lie that my client was clearly sober so that the confession would not be suppressed. Then at trial they had to stick to the deposition testimony. As a result, the jury heard that my client was stone cold sober but that the perp smelled like he fell into a brewing vat. This incongruity in the evidence was enough in itself to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the average jury. I can't tell you how many cases I won just relying on the cops to lie.

    Every person in the courtroom knows that all guns and all marijuana baggies are not sticking out from under the passenger's seat or the glove box, but the prosecutor routinely puts on this perjured testimony, the judge regularly pretends to believe it, and the evidence seized as supposedly in plain view but actually obtained from an illegal search is not suppressed. The whole farce goes on in thousands of courtrooms every day across the land. Our police are professional liars because if they weren't, they couldn't make enough cases to obtain federal aid money based upon the number of drug and gun busts made by each department each year. Those are the facts: like them or not.

  • Had we been told then what America knows now (Iraq WMD)

    07/10/2003 9:00:17 PM PDT · 153 of 160
    stryker to Mike4Freedom
    I agree. I have even heard two administration officials refer to Saddam's brutality as unprecedented in history. It scares me that people who could make such enormously stupid statements could actually have a say in shaping our public and international policy.
  • Man Gets Life Sentence for Spitting on Cop

    07/02/2003 9:03:06 PM PDT · 111 of 148
    stryker to <1/1,000,000th%
    But your suggestion was that he was sentenced so harshly because he might infect someone with a disease. You cannot slip away from faulty reasoning so slyly.
  • Man Gets Life Sentence for Spitting on Cop

    07/02/2003 8:57:48 PM PDT · 110 of 148
    stryker to mrfixit514
    Here come all the Libertarians to defend this POS. I'm glad he will rot in jail for the rest of his life. Then again I am for law and order and do not bitch about the "trashing of the constitution" when the law is actually enforced. Some of you complainers need to grow up. Give me one example of an upstanding, law abiding citizen who has anything to worry about with regard to this story.

    I spent many a year every day watching the criminal courts dispense what passes for justice these days and can assure you that there are many fine, upstanding citizens serving heavy time that are innocent of wrongdoing. If you wish, I will go through a few examples. Suffice it to say that the types of crimes in which model citizens find themselves nevertheless imprisoned are typically self-defense with a firearm, rape where the only evidence is the victim's word and the victim is somehow related to the defendant, murder (where there is no victim to identify the perpertrator), and domestic assault cases that also affect alimony and custody. In short, you know not of what you speak.

  • Man Gets Life Sentence for Spitting on Cop

    07/02/2003 8:31:19 PM PDT · 107 of 148
    stryker to <1/1,000,000th%
    Since some of these people carry diseases that could kill you if they infected you, I agree with the judge. Let the perp prove his case to an appeals court.

    We should convict people for what they do: not for what they might have done. This was at one time a fundamental tenet of English and American law, but like our basic freedoms has been rapidly eroded in the last thirty years.


    06/21/2003 11:45:23 PM PDT · 145 of 146
    stryker to Poohbah
    This conversation is pointless in that you spend no time thinking. You feel a certain way and then write what you feel. I will make a couple of final points and then call it quits.

    An assault is a verbal threat coupled with the apparent ability to carry out the threat. Hence, pointing your cellular at someone in any manner is not an assault, unless you are verbally threatening to use it in some manner that would lead to serious bodily harm or death.

    Fleeing from a traffic stop does usually mean that the driver has an outstanding warrant. There are millions upon millions of outstanding warrants in this country, most for such things as driving without insurance or failure to pay child support. It is for that very reason that most jurisdictions have or are considering prohibiting their officers from engaging in hot pursuit except in the case of a known violent felon being in the pursued car. The number of deaths stemming from hot pursuit are simply too high a price to pay when the police can simply take down a tag number and arrest the violator at work, home or other place when he is not in a position to flee.

    As for being innocent, current studies indicate that the average American commits at least one felony and a host of misdemeanors every year due to the vast quantity of laws that have been promulgated in the last thirty years. Congress and the state legislative bodies have delegated their rule making powers to bureacracies that can also establish criminal liabily for violation of rules that the particular agency generates. Hence, if, for instance, you poor your used oil out in your back yard, you may well be guilty of a felony in some states. The point is, we are all felons now, and it's only a matter of who gets caught and which laws they choose to emphasize for enforcement purposes. And with so many criminal laws, every increase in funding for enforcement results in more arrests and therefore higher crime rates (even though the crime rate has in reality remained constant). We therefore are buying our way into a true police state. Something about you makes me think you will like a cop on every corner, though.

    BTW, couldn't you come up with a little sarcasm or wit or engaging turn of a phrase, rather than just calling me a dumbshit. It makes you look unintelligent. Just my opinion.


    06/19/2003 5:21:46 PM PDT · 141 of 146
    stryker to Poohbah
    I'm overwhelmed by illogical thinking. You do not even know the definition of an "assault" (it's not a remedy for hemmoroids), nor can you demonstrate how any crime occurred calling for deadly force that the police didn't initiate by using hot pursuit for a traffic violation. Most jurisdictions in the United States have denied their police their little death dealing joy rides by this time. My law enforcement friends, and I have many of them having been in the business for many years, admit that they love the chase. Unfortunately for this poor guy, he chose the wrong place to drive erratically and then flee for whatever reason: past due child support, no license, no insurance, parking tickets, etc.. Once again, real police work means getting the license plate number and arresting the man when he doesn't expect it and no harm is presented to himself or other civilians. The British do it all of the time, but it's not cowboy enough for American cops. We would rather kill innocents than properly arrest and proportionately punish the guilty.

    06/14/2003 3:27:41 PM PDT · 120 of 146
    stryker to NonValueAdded
    There was an unrelated armored car robbery. Hence, it was totally irrelevant. It still comes down to the fact this man was gunned down for traffic infractions--driving erratically. My only agenda is that I am an admitted libertarian and find the totally unquestioning cop worship society we have built to be more of a threat than the inflated and hysteric crime statistics the news media generate. We do not need hot pursuit except in the case of violent felons, nor do we need the use of deadly force except to apprehend violent felons. Let the others go and get their license tags. Then do the footwork to find them in less threatening circumstances. I'll bet you loved the murder of the Branch Davidians, when all the ATF/FBI had to do was wait to execute their warrant when Koresch left the property as he often did. (One warrant for one man but over a hundred men, women and children dead--justified of course.) But that wouldn't have taught those rebellious dirtbags a lesson, would it?

    There is nothing to spin here. The police shot an unarmed man for traffic violations. Another dirtbag learned his lesson for running from the police state. You are the one trying to spin the simple facts.


    06/13/2003 4:04:06 PM PDT · 77 of 146
    stryker to Poohbah
    Just lucky so far.

    06/13/2003 3:57:09 PM PDT · 72 of 146
    stryker to sinkspur
    Your knowledge of the general law of most states is not correct. In most states, one may not defend property with deadly force, only oneself or another from serious imminent bodily injury or death. Additionally, for self-defense to apply, both subjective and objective tests are applied. The defendant must have honestly believed his life was in imminent danger and objectively his life must have been in fact in imminent danger.

    06/13/2003 3:49:22 PM PDT · 68 of 146
    stryker to NonValueAdded
    This "perp" merely ran a red light.

    06/13/2003 3:45:51 PM PDT · 64 of 146
    stryker to BushCountry
    I'm more concerned about cops killing innocent people by going in hot pursuit of red light violations and subsequently pulling firearms on minor traffic violators, then firing away without any evidence of a felony, especially a violent one. This victim, if left alone, would have endangered no one further, but because of the contemporary attitudes of some police officers, he and all of the officers involved became threats to the life and limb of myself and my family. A pox on both of their houses.
  • Iowa Court Revives Suit Over Satan Remark

    06/13/2003 1:13:32 PM PDT · 27 of 27
    stryker to lilylangtree
    They did force him into a lie, but because of the attorney/client privilege, and because he had a guardian ad litem who stood to gain the funds from the lawsuit and therefore would not waive the privilege, there was no way to prove they were forcing him to lie. All that was needed in court was the original allegation and the experts testifying that subsequent recantations were proof that the original allegation was true (the voodoo science I spoke of before.)

    But aside from that case, the important point is that when the boy recanted, the church followed biblical doctrine exactly and yet was held liable. In the past, the courts have be loathe to interfere in church affairs if traditional doctrine was followed. Now, the church is held to the same standard as any other corporation. Hence, a married couple seeking counseling from their pastor can sue the church for the break-up of their marriage if they can argue that the pastor was negligent in only counseling Christ to the couple, rather than also counseling the psychobabble that passes for psychology these days.

  • Iowa Court Revives Suit Over Satan Remark

    06/12/2003 7:14:46 PM PDT · 25 of 27
    stryker to lilylangtree
    If the church did not file for tax exemption, then it could engage in political activities, but tax exemption is irrelevant to the church's liability in tort under the common law. Hence, in answer to your question: no, having a non-tax exempt status would not protect the church from the encroachment of judicial decisions on the church's ability to practice biblical doctrine.

    Count on this--it will not be long before the church will not be able to offer Christian couseling services for fear of liability in tort, and it won't be long after that when our preachers will be sued for teaching that engaging in homosexuality or adultery is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and therefore actionable under tort law.

    In the lawsuit I just consulted on, the plaintiff recanted his original allegation immediately after making it and continued to recant for five years. Nevertheless, the church was held liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars because it followed the biblical doctrine that the plaintiff confess his lie before the congregation. Even after he won the judgment, the plaintiff continued to recant and even went so far as to go to the police and give them a taped statement that he had lied and his attorneys had forced him to make the original statement.

  • Are Evangelists Attacks on Islam Provoking more Terrorism?

    06/11/2003 8:56:36 PM PDT · 24 of 38
    stryker to Hillary's Lovely Legs
    Let the preachers roll! America and the Koran in 2003 are like Germany and Mein Kampt in the early 1930's. If the Germans had only read "My Struggle" the entire blueprint for the future was laid out for them and Hitler would never have come to power. Likewise, if Americans find out what is truly in the Koran, there will be no more of this peaceful religion nonsense and we can deal with Islam as we dealt with communism: containment of an ideology that seeks world domination through any means possible.
  • Iowa Court Revives Suit Over Satan Remark

    06/11/2003 8:34:37 PM PDT · 18 of 27
    stryker to lilylangtree
    I just finished working on a lawsuit against a church and I feel this thread is missing the point. The question is one of the disintegration of the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of governmental intrusion into our freedom of worship. In my case, a teenage boy made an incredulous allegation against the church pastor. The deacons convened and asked him if the allegation was true. He stated it was not. They then asked him to repent in front of the church, as the scriptures suggest. This he did. Later, a couple of out of state shyster lawyers heard about these events through the boys foster mother (and beneficiary to any award) and had her declared his agent for the purposes of bringing suit and then brought suit for the original allegation against the pastor and then against the church for the deacon's meeting and for supposedly forcing the boy to recant in front of the congregation. Although the boy continued to recant throughout the entire trial preparation time of about five years, the plaintiff called experts to the effect that the recantations were evidence of the truth of the original allegation. Voodoo science.

    To make a long story short, notwithstanding first amendment arguments, the trial court ruled that the church could not follow the scripture when dealing with its own members when that scripture may conflict with simple common law tort law in which the government has an interest in promoting. Such a ruling basically means that no longer can a church offer counseling, etc. unless it meets the same standards as secular counselors, which will never happen, since a church counselor relies upon belief in miracles, healings, and the resurrection of Christ in his counseling.

    In my research for this case, I found that more and more jurisdictions are holding churches to the secular standards of care for counseling, demotion, promotion, defamation, discipline, etc., and ignoring the biblical precepts to which the church authorities are bound. In short, the government of the United States is taking over the church through the courts.

  • PM: Canada right on Iraq No weapons of mass destruction found yet

    05/28/2003 1:09:09 PM PDT · 157 of 159
    stryker to laredo44
    My comment is based upon Colin Powell's argument to the Security Council of the United Nations in which he supposedly revealed our deepest intelligence to prove the Iraqi's were hiding WMD's from the UN inspectors. This argument was designed to convince the Security Council to resolve that armed conflict was justified due to the Iraqi obstinance. He did not argue that Iraq was part of international terror. Hence, our international credibility is based upon finding WMD's and nothing less.
  • PM: Canada right on Iraq No weapons of mass destruction found yet

    05/23/2003 1:49:35 PM PDT · 87 of 159
    stryker to SpinyNorman
    You make a cogent argument SpineyNorman, but it only is persuasive because it is made after the fact. If Colin Powell had argued that we should invade Iraq because Saddam was a dictator, and merely that, then there would have been little support for the war since dictators are a dime a dozen. The real problem facing the administration if there are no WMD's is that either the intelligence community is shown to be inept or untruthful, and/or the administration is shown to be the same. They must find WMD's or the Bush administration's credibility will be lost at least somewhat in the states and for sure abroad. While no one can now question our military prowess or our willingness to take casualties, our credibility is in serious question. And we have a war on terrorism that must be vigorously conducted with the help of most of the rest of the world. We need that credibility with our future allies. I, for one, am praying that we soon turn up those WMD's, or we may find ourselves isolated and abandoned in the war on terrorism.
  • Smoking foes need to butt out

    05/14/2003 2:01:53 PM PDT · 80 of 345
    stryker to cake_crumb
    Amen. Let's regulate it. Death to anybody that smells good.
  • Smoking foes need to butt out

    05/14/2003 1:40:50 PM PDT · 55 of 345
    stryker to Lorianne
    I'm extremely allergic to perfume. I hope you will refrain from wearing it in public places so that I will not be offended either. The problem is, however, that no one seems to care that I can't stand perfume. So I am just polite to perfume wearers and put up with my itching eyes and runny nose. You see, we don't all turn into little Nazis when we are offended by someone else's habits.
  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    04/02/2003 5:32:05 PM PST · 89 of 93
    stryker to MHGinTN
    Jesus driving the money changers from the Temple was not a man exercising his right of self-defense, but God rendering judgment on those who had defiled His house. He was not defending himself against anyone. An honest reading of the New Testament clearly states that one must turn his cheek when struck by an enemy only to be struck again. This commandment makes no exceptions for corporate disobedience in the form of governments. One must understand that the Old Testament never defines sin. In Hebrew, the word basically meant "missing the mark." The mark is defined in the New Testament by the life of the only Man who lived a life without sin and it is to his actions and teachings that we must look to determine how one would live, if it were possible for a mere man, to live without sin. He commanded that we "be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect." When faced with His own illegal and unjust torture and execution, although He had the power to take over Israel both in numbers and in supernatural power, He would not resist with violence. The people then, when given a choice, called for Barrabas to be freed, a violent revolutionary who would kill and change the government rather than be killed and change hearts. The great pacifists of our age have understood this.

    This fact does not make our war against Iraq unjustified. We were never expected to "be perfect." One cannot fail to sin when one lives in a world with sinners like Saddam and Hitler. They must be stopped as a practical matter. Nevertheless, many of the laws of the old testament were laws against actions that had to be taken as practical matters, and therefore, God made certain sacrifices specific to expiate those sins. Likewise, the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover all of the sins that we engage in, whether necessary or not, as He was the final, perfect sacrifice for our seemingly eternal imperfection.

  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    04/02/2003 1:44:05 PM PST · 87 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    Dear TheWriterInTexas

    I agree that each book requires more than a cursory reading to be understood. In fact, I don't believe either book can be understood unless the reader first has laid aside all political, social and preconceived notions about both the book and the world so that the book can write anew upon a fresh mind. My point is that having done so with both books, I found one to ultimately command total submission even to one's enemies and even at the price of one's life. That book, however, knew that it's children could never follow it's commands and therefore sent a substitute to provide prior forgiveness for their failures. The other book, on the other hand, commands it's adherents to submit completely to it, and to force, if necessary, the entire world to do the same. One can easily see how these differences would develop when one compares Christ's submission to the Sanhedrin and the Romans to Mohammed's conquest of Mecca upon his return from Medina. Both religions are founded in blood, but Christianity is founded in the sacrificial blood of Christ, whereas Islam is founded in the blood of the unbelievers (kafirs).

    From this distinction between the books, I see a cultural clash that is now and will inevitably lead to global carnage.

  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    03/27/2003 2:42:35 PM PST · 83 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    Dear TheWriterInTexas,

    I take issue with only your comparison of the Koran and Chistianity, relying on the Old Testament for examples of violence urged by the Christian Holy Book. In this, you, like many Christians, misunderstand the purpose of the Old Testament to Christians, who have a New Covenant or Testament with God that requires no less than self-sacrifice to one's enemies.

    The Old Testament is many things. It is a history book, a record of the relationship of the Jews to God, and a collection of poems, songs, and parables by which one might learn wisdom. But it is first and foremost for the Christian three pillars of their faith.

    First, it outlines the law under which we find we cannot live and teaches us therefore the need for a saviour. For instance, we are commanded not to be angry with our neighbor, and of course, a better known commandment is that we are not to covet that which is our neighbors. A man with self-honesty will realize quite quickly that he breaks these commandments daily.

    Second, the Old Testament is like a neon light of parables pointing to the characteristics of the Messiah so that when He comes, He will be recognized. Two quick examples are the blood of the passover lamb being placed in the shape of the cross on the door of the enslaved Israelites so that their first born sons would not be slain (so that death would pass them by), and the story of Joseph being thown into a well only to be raised again and sit in glory at the right hand of the Pharaoh, unrecognized by his own family, but their final salvation.

    Third, the Old Testament is God's genetic engineering plan to produce the woman from which God would cause a man capable of sinlessness to be born. It, in short, records the production of Mary. This is why, among other reasons, the Jews are set apart from other peoples, and why God demands that no intermarriage occur and often even commands acts of violence to prevent it. It is interesting to note in this light that Jesus had prostitutes and traitors in his maternal genetic line.

    Other than the aforementioned, the Christian is taught to turn the other cheek, to sacrifice himself rather than strike back, and, like Christ, to go willingly to his doom at the hands of an enemy. Although we cannot do this, we have a Saviour that has done it for us. And we can do the best we can. Compare this to Mohammed, who taught with his actions that Islam is to be spread with the sharp edge of the curved sword. Mohammed conquered with violence to spread his mosaic (partly Jewish, partly Christian, and partly made up) religion, whereas Jesus died to spread his, and forbade his diciples from the use of violence. For a true Christian, although he may fight in self-defense, he knows that he only does so in sin and because he is already forgiven.

  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    03/13/2003 8:43:01 PM PST · 81 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    Dear TheWriterInTexas,

    The reason I treat Saudi Arabia, specifically Mecca and Medina, as targets, even though they are alleged allies is that I have read and studied the Koran. While the administration does not want to pose this war as a war against Islam, it is just that. Islam teaches world domination moreso than did communism, and the centers of the madrasses or schools where radical Islam is being taught is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They are allies only because we hold the ruling elite in power, and this will not last. Then we will be dealing with two more, and more frightening Irans. Better to get the nuclear policy on the table now. Islam cannot exist without Mecca, and the Imams will find some way to teach a new version of Islam that doesn't require world domination if we make it clear that any nuclear, chemical or biological attack on our homeland will be met with an atomic attack with notice on their Holy sites.

    Again, I am basically a dove. But Islam is a very dangerous religion when followed as written. And as the stress between the West and the Islamic nations increases, more and more people that are Islamic in name only will turn to their Korans and actually read them. There they will find the directive to conquer all non-believers and then kill or heavily tax those that will not convert. The entire thrust of the book is to divide the world into two spheres: that territory under Islamic rule, and that territory yet to be brought under Islamic rule. And as you probably know, Mohammed himself set the example that the sword is the way to bring land under Muslim rule. The prophet of the West died on the cross rather than raise a hand to hurt his oppressors, and his doctrine soon ruled most of the civilized world. The doctrine of Mohammed is talk first, and if you don't succeed, behead the kafir.

  • Lindsey Graham: Prosecute Antiwar Protesters Who Impede War Effort

    03/11/2003 3:07:51 PM PST · 54 of 59
    stryker to cicero's_son
    You are exactly right. We do not want to repeat the errors of the sixties and create another underground anti-war movement that resorts to violent demonstration such as the Weathermen. Let them protest, and if they do something illegal, pick them up and handle them as peaceably as if CNN were filming every second of the arrest. This war could be a long affair if we have to nation build, and the last thing we want is another 1968 Chicago when we had tanks and machine gun nests protecting a national party convention. Many protesters want to be arrested and violently attacked as it proves the point they want to make about the administration they protest against.
  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    02/23/2003 7:54:12 PM PST · 78 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    WriterInTexas, I again enjoyed your response. I agree that an analogy exists between pre-world war II anti-Semitism and the more recent teachings of fundamentalist Islam regarding the United States. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we are experiencing the birth pangs of WWIII, which will be a war primarily between Western, historically Christian, nations (but now secular humanist for the most part), and historically Islamic nations. It will probably be a war exactly as President Bush has described it, but I don't think it has to be.

    I have posted before, even though I tend to be dovish, that I would like to see Bush delineate a doctrine much like the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction) that kept the peace during the cold war. That doctrine should state in the event the U.S. is attacked with a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that then upon three days notice the city of Medina will be destroyed with a nuclear device. Should another attack follow, the city of Mecca would suffer the same fate. The pith of this doctrine is that Islam cannot be practiced for all intents and purposes unless Mecca exists. Mecca is to the Muslim what the resurrection is to the Christian. Hence, if such a doctrine existed, many moderate Muslims would find themselves more encouraged to take care of their own black sheep.

    While I recognize that there are many types of terrorists, I think we have only to fear the fanatical, fundamentalist Islamic movement as it seems they are the terrorists who seem to have picked the U.S. as their scapegoat.

    I have very little time tonight, and have to go, but very much enjoyed your reply and will write later.


  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    02/22/2003 8:32:12 AM PST · 73 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    Thanks for the well thought out reply. I am still wondering if a secular,secure and wealthy Iraq brought about by normal relations with the United States might be a benefit. But your reply causes me to to see what a high stakes gamble such a policy would be. Saddam wouldn't be the first dog that bit the hand that fed him. The question then becomes, can we create in his wake another secular state with sufficient stability that it will not fall into fundamentalism.

    The only thing I found wanting in your reply was the clear link between the war on terrorism and radical fundamentalist Islam. In every case of terror about which I have read, both here and in Israel, the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. The schools that teach this form of Islam (I believe they are called Madrasses)are found mainly in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Hence, the 9/11 perpertrators came from Saudi Arabia. It is only our alliance with the leaders of these two countries that keep them in power. Without our support, both countries would quickly fall into forms of government similar to Iran. The same goes for Kuwait. After Iraq, at least the Saudi's, will quickly distance themselves from us and begin to take a much more fundamentalist position themselves, as they have become very frightened of their own people. In fact, Saudi Arabia may well become our next major problem.

    Thanks again.

  • The madman of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

    02/21/2003 9:01:20 PM PST · 58 of 93
    stryker to TheWriterInTexas
    Very nice post WriterInTexas. Answer me this though, and I mean this honestly because I have yet to hear a good answer and am open minded to one. Our enemy is Islamic fundamentalism, which breeds primarily in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iraq is a secular state in a sea of Islamic fundamentalism and only showed any interest in furthering that cause after our sanctions were imposed. Would it not be in our best interests to open normal trade and political relations with Iraq, even to the point of developing strategic alliance with it, so long as it remains a secular state?

    As to the fact Saddam is a dictator, we have and do support dictators around the world throughout the twentieth century. Many of these alliances have been very fruitfull. After all, if Stalin had not kept the majority of Hitler's ground troups busy, the invasion of Normandy could never have occurred. In short, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and no one can doubt that Iraq fought a long and arduous war against Iran for the very fact the latter country was fundamentalist. I just don't see where this attack fits in with the war on terrorism.

    I started out doubting Bush's abilities, then thinking he was great, but now thinking he is side-tracked. Straighten me out because I would love to support this war.

  • A call for compassion [War On Some Drugs becomes war on doctors]

    02/17/2003 11:48:38 AM PST · 185 of 296
    stryker to DannyTN
    In re your statement that opiate addiction destroys people's lives, I believe the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. Mere addiction, without more, shortens the life span by a couple of years. It is the illegality that kills by forcing the addict into the black market to obtain the opiate and thereby exposing him or her to criminal elements and also into committing crimes either to obtain the drug or to obtain the funds to pay the inflated cost caused by the drugs illegality. Finally, the illegality of the drug results in a failure to control quality which failure often leads to injury and death. In all events, the addict's future is incarceration or early death, not from the addiction, but from the law making the opiate illegal for the addict to obtain and use. In countries where legalization or harm reduction has been tried, opiate addicts have been able to live normal, socially productive lives (despite the politically motivated propoganda to the contrary).

    We must always remember in dealing with this issue that billions upon billions of dollars depend upon keeping drugs illegal and maintaining the physician's monopoly of the distribution of medicinal drugs.

  • Bring The Legions Home

    01/19/2003 5:11:49 PM PST · 119 of 176
    stryker to Centurion2000
    Dead on right Centurion. In this war against terrorism, our enemy is the fundamentalist Islamic movement that seeks to create Islamic states wherever possible. In Iraq, we have one of the few strong, secular governments in the region with a history and culture that has well incorporated that secularism in it's civilian life. Iraqis want Chevy's and Dodge Rams, not the lives of millions of Americans. Common sense tells us that Iraq's past transgression against Kuwait, (invited by the U.S.--see "The Gulf War Reader")could be forgiven, the sanctions lifted, and normal trade relations resumed as quickly as possible. In fact, Iraq should enjoy favored nation status in it's international trade agreements with the United States. Then, suddenly, without a war, without a bullet being fired, we would have a second Israel in the Middle East to balance the growing power of the Islamic states. In short, we should embrace Saddam as a brother skeptic, and support his government with all of the resources possible.

    The Bush plan, to eliminate the most powerful secular state in the region, flies in the face of all reason unless one understands the intricate ties linking the Bushes and the Bin Ladens (run a search of the Wall Street Journal using the key words Carlyle Group) and the fantastic amounts of money to be made by a war in Iraq that would allow the permanent stationing of tens of thousands of American troops there, guaranteeing not only the free flow of Iraqi oil, but the continued rule of the decadent Saudi Arabian royal family, amongst others in the region. Hence, once again, in the name of doing good, we will actually be taking up arms against regimes that practice liberally the consistent oppression of their own people.

  • Pa. Police Kill Boy, 12, After Car Chase

    01/19/2003 4:17:03 PM PST · 218 of 218
    stryker to Cap'n Crunch
    Yes, maybe when I come to power. Ha! Ha! Well, I'll vote for you. In any event, if I did come to power, I would empty the prisons of non-violent offenders and fill them with violent offenders. My criminal law policies would be clear and simple--if you physically hurt or attempt to hurt another human being, you won't see the light of day for the rest of your life. If you steal or defraud, you will be in work release until the money is repaid twice over. Otherwise, it is the civil law, not the criminal law, that will deal with your case.
  • Pa. Police Kill Boy, 12, After Car Chase

    01/03/2003 12:16:37 PM PST · 215 of 218
    stryker to Cap'n Crunch
    Cap'n: I have many years in law enforcement related activities as both a lawyer for defense and prosecution and I can assure you that crime is being punished in this country at a rate and harshness that is heretofore unimaginable. We have the most prisoners of any country in the world. Our three largest states rank third, fourth and fifth in the world measured as separate countries if my memory serves me right. The average citizen's chances of going to jail, being of adult age and male, is about 7 in a hundred. Add on probation and you get an entire population being monitored by big brother through a criminal justice system with far too many laws. When was the last time you poured oil or transmission fluid on the ground? That was a felony. It's all in who gets caught or who they don't like. Any tax audit can result in criminal prosecution because noboby, not even the tax courts, agree on what the tax code says. The system is one giant monster slowly eating its way into the very freedoms our forefathers gave their lives to protect.
  • Pa. Police Kill Boy, 12, After Car Chase

    12/26/2002 12:26:11 AM PST · 176 of 218
    stryker to jdontom
    Just don't engage in hot pursuit for non-violent felonies and all misdemeanors and most of the problem of killing innocent suspects and bystanders is avoided. Many jurisdictions are coming to understand this simple fact, and that they end up solving the crime and catching the perp anyway. But it is very hard for the police to be honest and admit they love hot pursuit.

    Recently, locally, the cops thought they saw a young man smoking a joint in his car and started chasing him. The suspect ran into a visiting college baseball team's van and killed one of their players. It turned out that the suspect did not have any marijuana, but was afraid of an outstanding warrant for some trivial thing like child support. You should have heard the hue and cry of the police department when we argued that they not engage in hot pursuit!

  • Bush dead wrong about Iraq

    10/03/2002 9:10:19 PM PDT · 74 of 97
    stryker to Heartlander2
    If a nuke goes off in America, no Islamic city in the world will be safe from the same fate for the next decade. That alone should forestall any such nuclear attack on our homeland. However, Bush should make this clear with a doctrinal statement.
  • Skylines (Which One is Your Favorite?)

    09/30/2002 6:16:39 PM PDT · 108 of 114
    stryker to FreedomFriend
    Cincinnati. Hometown.
  • The Christian argument for the decriminalization of marijuana.

    09/15/2002 11:50:07 AM PDT · 42 of 73
    stryker to dark_lord
    I find this entire argument funny, as if a crowd of Galatians were discussing whether they needed be circumcized to be good Christians. The point is missed that Christ's work on the cross freed us from the curse of having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yet, most Christians cannot wait to begin to establish rules of what it takes to make a good Christian. They commit again the original sin and hence again drive the nails though the Lord's hands and feet a million times over. This is the history of the church.

    Shall we never recognize what Paul so clearly writes in Romans 6,7, and 8--that with our salvation a new man is created inside of us that does not sin, has not sinned, and will never sin, regardless of what our doomed and dying flesh may do? Were we not crucified with Christ as Paul writes, and are therefore dead to the flesh and it's sinful ways? Can the dead sin? Of course not!

    Therefore, you argue over an issue that is irrelevant to being a Christian. We are innocent to sin and do not know it. We make no rules as to how to be good Christians because our way is written on and in our individual hearts. Our inner Man, resurrected with Christ, joined to Him inseperably, incapable of sin, directs our way. We eat from the tree of life.

    So take your words of death, your rule-making, and be on your way out of Eden once again, until you learn the Gospel you think you espouse. Until then, you merely crucify our Lord over and over again.

  • Bush to Challenge UN with High - Stakes Iraq Choice

    09/11/2002 7:10:54 PM PDT · 36 of 64
    stryker to agrace
    I liked when he was first asked about the attacks when he arrived at the White House. He was unprepared and almost cried. He had to hold back the tears and explain that he was a loving person and basically just babble something like justice would be done. He showed that he was a real Man with a capital M. Then, when he got a grip, he came out shooting. My kind of guy. I just hope he realizes that we are fighting WWIII against Islam, not a war against terrorism. If he doesn't, he will accomplish nothing more than the creation of a new generation of martyrs.
  • Stand-off at London mosque

    09/11/2002 6:03:02 PM PDT · 29 of 55
    stryker to lgjhn
    Well said, lgjhn. We need to be rid of Colin Powell and the rest of the tolerance and multinationalist crowd that do not understand that this is the beginning of a world war. Just like Hitler wrote in "My Struggle" his exact plans for the conquest of the lands east of Germany for living space for the superior German race, the Koran lays out in intricate detail the Islamic quest for world domination by violence or economic ruin of the Christians and Jews. But again, no one is reading the plan so openly espoused.

    I have Islamic friends, and they are some of the nicest and most fun loving people I have ever known. But, I have no doubt where their loyalty will be when I am being lined up against the wall before the Islamic firing squad for my failure to renounce Christ. I wish one national leader had the courage to tell the truth--this is a war between cultures that have developed from two fundamentally different religions. It is therefore a religious war, whether we want it to be or not. And until we understand that fact, we will continue to have a fifth column not only as allies, but within our borders in incredible numbers.

    If mutually assured destruction was a reasonable policy against the Soviet Union, it is certainly a reasonable policy against Islam, once you see the fact that it is Islam we are fighting.

  • Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

    09/08/2002 5:55:30 PM PDT · 704 of 706
    stryker to Poser
    You continue to jump from point to point without ever addressing the one you just slipped on. Now suddenly, I am claiming that God only reveals the truth to an elite few among the many millions when everything I have written is, if not contrary in fact, it certainly is in spirit. I have merely argued that anyone wanting proof of God's existence sufficiently will be given that level of proof which that particular person needs. Therefore, I have argued no less than that God, and therefore, salvation, is open to all of the inhabitants of the world. Only your childish tantrums could blind you to this fact.

    As to the old and new earth arguments, the question is one of reading the Bible rather than parroting the teachings of some idiot generating billions with his televangelism. Men and women were told to replenish the earth, a distinct reference to the fact the earth had been previously inhabited. One cannot replenish something that had not once been previously full. Additionally, the prophets write extensively about intelligent beings that lived and fought over the earth before God created Man in the form He now exists.

    This discussion is now at an end. I can feel the hatred in your words. You have no desire for open and honest discussion of the issues at hand with someone who is your intellectual equal. You are afraid to debate me on the merits of my arguments, but always push on to some new topic, usually involving a personal attack like the one of which you first accused me. The funny thing is that people like you almost always end up being people like me. The more you hate Him (as I once did), the more he will seek you; for, "He who is forgiven much, loves much."

    So long Poser. We'll talk again when you have matured--spiritually that is.


    09/07/2002 5:44:26 PM PDT · 149 of 179
    stryker to evolved_rage
    I think Iraq needs nuclear weapons today...heheheheh. Well, at least the bunker buster type.

    Why waste our energy on one country when so many are threats. Let us just make it clear with the "Bush Doctrine"--if a WMD is used against the United States or it's citizens, Medina will be given thirty days warning and then be reduced to radioactive ash. Should a second attack on the United States occur, the same warning and consequence will befall Mecca.

    The beauty of Islam, from our perspective, is that it cannot exist without the existence of Mecca. Hence, a doctrine such as this would cause the fence sitting Saudi's and others to rapidly gain control of the radicals in their midst. As for Saddam, he would not dare bring down such destruction on the Holy cities for he wouldn't live but seconds if he did.