MERGED-->The Pope insults Islam + Turkish official compares Pope... - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2006, 08:54 AM   #196
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Even the LRA?
There are also the various Christian terrorist groups among the Naga in eastern India...but I think shart more had in mind violence in response to mere statements against one's faith.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p01s01-wogi.htm
Quote:
The reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's comments this week, drawing on sources who argued that there is something inherently irrational about Islam that can lead to violence, underscores the current depth of religious sensitivities - ones that extremists are quick to exploit.
..........
"Arabs and Muslims feel oppressed by the West. Afghanistan and Iraq are features, but most important is Palestine ... and all of this built-up anger then sometimes explodes,'' says Abdel Wahab al-Messiri, an Islamist thinker and professor in Cairo. "The anger at the West can't be expressed through the popular channels because of their own regimes, so they wait for something like cartoons or the pope's comments and their totalitarian governments can't stop them because that would be something un-Islamic."

Many prominent Muslim leaders like the Muslim Brotherhood's Mahdi Akef and Yusuf Qaradawi, an influential television preacher based in Qatar, have urged Muslims not to react with violence. The Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman at first said the pope's expression was sufficient, and then later backtracked and demanded a stronger apology. The group may have been responding to popular anger, and seeking to surf with it rather than go against it, analysts say. Mr. Qaradawi, on Al Jazeera Sunday, urged Muslims to protest Friday "to express their anger in a peaceful and rational manner." Qaradawi also linked the pope's comments to President Bush's recent statement that America is at war with "Islamic Fascists," saying the pope is "giving international cover" for Bush.

Mr. Messiri agrees with what is a widely held view in the region. "It was a bit opportunistic for the pope. He sees the war on terror going on and he wants to jump on the bandwagon and infuse some life into the church,'' says Messiri. "His comments exposed some ignorance. There are many rational schools in Islam. Many Muslims find concepts like the Trinity and incarnation irrational."
.............
Most Muslim doctrine rejects conversion by force, but some of the schools of the fundamentalist Salafi brand of the faith call for the execution of people who reject the faith. Others call for the murder of those deemed to insult the religion.

While outbreaks of rage were limited, they were a measure of the fact that some people respond to this kind of intolerant thinking. Over the past two days, seven churches in the Palestinian territories suffered arson attacks, a nun in Somalia was murdered in an attack that wire services speculated was linked to the pope's comments, and the pope was burned in effigy in Kashmir and in Basra, Iraq.
..........................
Coptic leader Pope Shenouda called on Pope Benedict to apologize in a more forthright manner. "I hope the remarks will not undermine interfaith dialogue,'' he said at press conference. "He knows exactly what he needs to do."
It's interesting that all the violent protests mentioned occurred in areas already experiencing extensive sectarian violence.

An altogether more bristling piece from today's Guardian:
Quote:
Some say this was a case of naivete, of a scholarly theologian stumbling into the glare of a global media storm, blinking with surprise at the outrage he had inadvertently triggered. The learned man's thoughtful reasoning, say some, has been misconstrued and distorted by troublemakers, and the context ignored.

But such explanations are unconvincing. This is a man who has been at the heart of one of the world's multinational institutions for a very long time. He has been privy to how pontifical messages get distorted and magnified by a global media. Shy he may be, but no one has ever before accused this pope of being a remote theologian sitting in an ivory tower...He has long been famous for his bruising condemnation of those he disagrees with. Senior Catholic theologians such as the German Hans Kung are well familiar with the sharpness of his judgments.
..................
But while the Pope has tried to build a more appealing public image, what has become increasingly clear is that this is a man with little sympathy or imagination for other religious faiths. Famously, the then Cardinal Ratzinger once referred to Buddhism as a form of masturbation for the mind - a remark still repeated among deeply offended Buddhists more than a decade after he said it...

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI's short papacy has marked a significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue. John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace. He felt keenly the terrible history of Catholic-Jewish relations, and having fought with the Polish resistance to save Jews in the second world war, John Paul II made unprecedented efforts to begin to heal centuries of hostility and indifference on the part of the Catholic church to Europe's Jews. John Paul II also addressed himself to the ancient enmity between Muslims and Catholics; he apologised for the Crusades and was the first Pope to visit a mosque during a visit to Syria in 2001.

In contrast, Pope Benedict has managed to antagonise two major world faiths within a few months. The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-semitism, and offered no apology - whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged he was a "son of the German people" ... "but not guilty on that account"; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a "ring of criminals" were responsible for Nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis...Even worse, in his Auschwitz address, he managed to argue in a long theological exposition that the real victims of the Holocaust were God and Christianity. As one commentator put it, he managed to claim that Jews were the "themselves bit players - bystanders at their own extermination. The true victim was a metaphysical one." This theological treatise bears the same characteristics as last week's Regensburg lecture; put at its most charitable, they are too clever by half. ..

But if his visit to Auschwitz disappointed many and failed to resolve outstanding resentments about the murky role of German Catholicism, this latest incident seems even worse...Even the most cursory knowledge of dialogue with Islam teaches - and as a Vatican Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI would have learned this long ago - that reverence for the Prophet is a non-negotiable. What unites all Muslims is a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honour of Muhammad. Given the scale of the offence, the carefully worded apology, actually, gives little ground; he recognises that Muslims have been offended and that he was only quoting, but there is no regret at using such an inappropriate comment or the deep historic resonances it stirs up.

By an uncanny coincidence the legendary Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died last week. No one connected the two events, but the Pope had already run into controversy in Italy by inviting the rabid Islamophobe to a private audience just months ago. This is the journalist who published a bestseller in 2001 which amounted to a diatribe of invective against Islam...comments such as "Muslims breed like rats"...At the time of her papal audience, Fallaci's ranting against Islam had landed her in court and there was outrage at the Pope's insensitive invitation. The Pope refused to backtrack and insisted the meeting was purely pastoral.

Put last week's lecture in Bavaria and the Fallaci audience alongside his vocal opposition to Turkish membership of the EU, and the picture isn't pretty. On one of the biggest and most volatile issues of our day - the perceived clash between the west and the Muslim world - the Pope seems to have abdicated his papal role of arbitrator, and taken up the arms in a rerun of a medieval fantasy.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 09:01 AM   #197
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:27 AM
The Guardian piece there sums him up well. As I said earlier in this thread, in his past life as "Cardinal Ratzinger," he quite openly showed his disdain for ecumenism, both with non-Christian faiths and non-Catholic Christian faiths.

I don't believe that he directly intended to cause this firestorm, but you can't hide your subconscious thoughts forever, and I think they reared its ugly head in that tactless speech he made. Couple that with the notoriously deficient "Vatican apologies," which lack all the typical humility that you'd expect from anyone else, and I can see why Muslims don't believe his apology to be sincere. That's because it isn't.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 09:51 AM   #198
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:27 AM
No matter what the context, at a time like this in history that is so sensitive and critical you just can't say things like that without there being repercussions. It is insensitive and irresponsible. I certianly would never disagree that violence is no way to promote or spread any religion, but the fact remains that not all Muslims are violent.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...18/pzn.01.html

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN FAITH AND VALUES CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is part of a -- of a speech in a much larger context.

And I think, in fact, if you read just one line down from that, you will see what he was trying to get at with that quote. Let's take a look. "Spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God."

So, that's really the crux of what he was trying to get at, at least in this first part. He then goes on to talk about the use of reason in religion and so on. But, in the reference to Islam, what he's trying to just point out is, you know, is this something rational? Is the use of violence a rational way of pleasing God? Is this a good thing?

That's his whole point.


ZAHN: Vali, do you think this pope is anti-Muslim?

VALI NASR, AUTHOR, "THE SHIA REVIVAL": Well, his comments come also against the background of having argued that Turkey should not become a member of the European community, because Turkey's religion is incompatible with western values.

But I also think that it was an unfortunate choice of a -- of a quotation by the pope, when you're trying to make a point about rationality of religion, and not using violence to promote it, that you choose a quote from a crusader figure from the 14th century, without clarifying where you personally stand on that issue. And, therefore, it can be -- very easily be read out of context, and lead to the kind of reaction that we see.

ZAHN: Do you think this kind of reaction is justifiable, Vali?

NASR: No, it's not justifiable. But you're -- at a time period where the Muslims believe that West has embarked on a war on Islam -- this, we have been hearing for a number of years. Anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism is at a fever pitch. And Muslims feel a sense of siege. So, when the most important spiritual authority, in their eyes, in the West, the head of the Catholic Church, rather than acting as a bridge-builder, they see, he's adding fuel to fire, they very quickly succumb to the kind of violence -- and there are many political figures and militant forces that try to make hay out of this by taking advantage of it for their own reasons.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:03 AM   #199
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


And you're still alive?
apparently I am Einstein, now answer the question
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:05 AM   #200
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:27 AM
http://hnn.us/articles/29989.html


"For, in the view of some Muslims, it is not unreasonable to spread their religion by violence, for two reasons: 1) it is the final revelation of God to humanity and 2) the Qur’an enjoins it. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones (Indiana’s father): “goose-stepping morons like yourselves should be reading your holy book instead of burning churches.” If they did, they would discover that:

* Surah Muhammad [47]:3 says “When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads….
* Surah Anfal [8]:12 says “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:74 says “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God….”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:56 says “The true believer fights for the cause of God, but the infidel fights for the devil.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:101 says “The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies.”
* Surah al-Ma’idah [5]:51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.”

Only in a truly Bizarro world can those passages NOT be an incitement for some to violence, to “evil and inhuman” acts. Are there other passages in the Qur’an mitigating these? Yes.4 But many of these more benevolent passages are also considered by many Muslims to have been abrogated by the more martial ones."
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:07 AM   #201
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


No, it wasn't something he said about some of Mohhamed's perspectives, he said

ONLY evil and inhuman.

I never met Mohhamed.
Have you met Hitler ? , MLK ? Gandhi ?, George Bush ?
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:23 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The Bible makes no pronouncement on the ideal form of government, and all of this just strikes me as an infusion of American nationalism into religion.
It's considered "nationalism" by those who live to impress the international community. But there are anti-Marxist principles found in the Bible, such as if you don't work, you don't eat. And in Deutoronomy (sp?), we are told that the poor will always exist. Marx had good intentions to override this, but it only led to the equal distribution of poverty.



Quote:
Originally posted by melon
First off, Karl Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1847, a whole 12 years before Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published, so there goes your theory that Marx was specifically out to target creationism.
Not specifically, but it served as a major tenant of Marxism. If I made the claim that the Communist Manifesto itself was an advocate of Darwinism, I was incorrect. However - consider this quote that were found after The Communist Manifesto was written.

"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

- Marx to Engels, on Origin of Species

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The rest that you mention about Marx is nothing but irrational blather that looks like it should have come out of Eisenhower-era Cold War propaganda. The fact is that you owe Marxist philosophy for moderating American capitalism in the early 20th century. Otherwise, unless you're born of old money, you'd probably be living in a tenement, getting all your services from the single corporate monopoly.
The child labor period, unsafe working conditions, and monopolies were all tied to Corporate Socialism, rather than capitalism. I disagree with you, FDR and many challengers before him would have revised the system regardless of whether Karl Marx became a relevant philosopher or not. We still see some forms of Corporate Socialism to this day, such as the outsourcing of jobs and the illegal hiring of illegal workers for illegal wages. Also, Teddy Roosevelt did a lot for anti-trust legislation, and he wasn't exactly a pinko for doing so. He broke monopolies into several different companies so that they could compete against each other, and competition is what capitalism is all about.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
There'd be no health insurance, no Social Security, 12/7 work weeks with no labor laws, no minimum wage, and an abundance of child labor with no access to education. This is the kind of environment that Marxism arose from, and religion did nothing to stop these abuses.
James warning rich oppressors of their judgement day comes to mind... The problem was not religion per se, it was the people who chose not to practice what they claimed to believe in.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Marx was probably correct in his time. The way things were going, a revolution was a matter of time. And religion was--and still can be--an opiate for the masses. There's still way too many people who let their ministers do all their thinking for them, and if you're part of the clergy that's doing well under an oppressive totalitarian state (such as the Roman Catholic Church under Franco in Spain), why would you encourage the masses to revolt?
I agree that there are plenty who don't put any time into studying what they claim to believe, that's inevitable. In all the theological diversity there is out there today even within the Christian religion, it's important to know where you stand so that your branch of Christianity doesn't hoodwink you. Religion becomes the opiate of the guillible masses when people rely on religious authorities to do all of their thinking for them.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
If you have a beef with totalitarian atheist statism, take it up with Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. They're the philosophies that took Marxism to violent ends.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Zedong, Pol Pot, and Castro explain perfectly why I despise Marx. Their very existence led to the needless slayings of over 125 million people. Non-biblical Christianity in its extremity is Christianity taken out of context by biblical revisionists who claim to have faith, but have no reason to believe that it is the word of God. That's where false prophecy becomes the opiate of the masses. Christophobia in its extremity leads to blood and guts. That's where Marxism became the opiate of the masses.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
"The only thing I know is that I'm not a Marxist." - Karl Marx
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Zedong, Pol Pot, and Castro all put their own spin on Marxism. But in the end, the road to hell was paved with "good intentions."
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 10:30 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
[url]
* Surah Muhammad [47]:3 says “When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads….
* Surah Anfal [8]:12 says “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:74 says “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God….”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:56 says “The true believer fights for the cause of God, but the infidel fights for the devil.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:101 says “The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies.”
* Surah al-Ma’idah [5]:51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.”
These scriptures are downright terrifying.

But I'd be careful. Many may use the revised, watered-down version of the Koran to "prove" you "wrong."
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:04 AM   #204
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:57 PM
If the Koran really does have contain such passages breeding unimaginable evil as toscano provided (and Muslims in general believes in the Koran), then I condem Islam and everyone that believes in it. Fuck tolerance, I'm more than happy to tolerate Islam but how can you when the Koran explicitly condones actions that are totally contrary to the whole notion of tolerance.

In that case there was much veracity to the Popes comments and shouldn't publically retract his conviction about the issue.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:12 AM   #205
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
These scriptures are downright terrifying.

But I'd be careful. Many may use the revised, watered-down version of the Koran to "prove" you "wrong."
Oh so they conveniently change the Koran so it would become more acceptable and people would not percieve it as a stupendously evil religion that strongly encourages subjugation by force and voilence (more specifically 'beheading of infidels')?

I believe that is what Islam is at its core irrespective of what artificial changes they make to the Koran when it suits them.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:19 AM   #206
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,457
Local Time: 05:27 AM


maybe someday...
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:22 AM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:27 AM
isn't it weird how all religious text seem to contradict themselves?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:41 AM   #208
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
isn't it weird how all religious text seem to contradict themselves?
Not when you subsequently realize that this indicates religious texts aren't divinely inspiried by a God, rather they are written by people whom are inherently flawed and make mistakes.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:43 AM   #209
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:27 AM
[q]Papal Bull
Joseph Ratzinger's latest offense.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 18, 2006, at 11:40 AM ET


[...]

Attempting to revive his moribund church on a visit to Germany, where the Roman congregations are increasingly sparse, Joseph Ratzinger (as I shall always think of him) has managed to do a moderate amount of harm—and absolutely no good—to the very tense and distraught discussion now in progress between Europe and Islam. I strongly recommend that you read the full text of his lecture at the University of Regensburg last Tuesday.

After the most perfunctory introduction, Ratzinger goes straight to his choice of quotation, which is taken from 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. This potentate supposedly once engaged in debate—the precise time and place is unknown—with an unnamed Persian. The subject was Christianity and Islam. The Byzantine asks the Persian to "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (On the face of it, not a very open-ended inquiry.) But, warming to his own theme, the purple-clad monarch of Constantinople allegedly added that "to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death."

Now, you do not have to be a Muslim to think that for the bishop of Rome to cite this is the most perfect hypocrisy. There would have been no established Byzantine or Roman Christianity if the faith had not been spread and maintained and enforced by every kind of violence and cruelty and coercion. To take Islam's own favorite self-pitying example: It was the Catholic crusaders who sacked and burned Christian Byzantium on their way to Palestine—and that was only after they had methodically set about the Jews, so the Muslim world was actually only the third victim of this barbarity. (Sir Steven Runciman's A History of the Crusades is the best source here.) Yet of all the words he could have chosen, to suggest that religion might wish to break its old connection with conquest, intolerance, and subjugation, Ratzinger had to select an example that was designed to remind his hearers of the crudest excesses of the medieval period. His mention of Manuel II was evidently not accidental or anecdotal. He refers to him repeatedly and returns to him again in the closing paragraph, as if to rub it in.

[...]

To read the bulk of the speech, however, is to realize that, if he had chanced to be born in Turkey or Syria instead of Germany, the bishop of Rome could have become a perfectly orthodox Muslim. He may well distrust Islam because it claims that its own revelation is the absolute and final one, but he describes John, one of the apostles, as having spoken "the final word on the biblical concept of God," and where Muslims believe that Mohammed went into a trance and took dictation from an archangel, Ratzinger accepts as true the equally preposterous legend that St. Paul was commanded to evangelize for Christ during the course of a vision experienced in a dream. He happens to get Mohammed wrong when he says that the prophet only forbade "compulsion in religion" when Islam was weak. (The relevant sura comes from a period of relatively high confidence.) But he could just as easily have cited the many suras that flatly contradict this apparently benign message. The familiar problem is that, if you question another religion's "revelation" and dogma too closely, you invite a tu quoque in respect of your own. Which is just what has happened in the present case.

The Muslim protesters are actually being highly ungrateful. When the embassies of Denmark were being torched earlier this year, Rome managed a few words of protest about … the inadvisability of profane cartoons. In almost every confrontation between Islam and the West, or Islam and Israel, the Vatican has either split the difference or helped to ventriloquize Muslim grievances. Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. He pretends that the word Logos can mean either "the word" or "reason," which it can in Greek but never does in the Bible, where it is presented as heavenly truth. He mentions Kant and Descartes in passing, leaves out Spinoza and Hume entirely, and dishonestly tries to make it seem as if religion and the Enlightenment and science are ultimately compatible, when the whole effort of free inquiry always had to be asserted, at great risk, against the fantastic illusion of "revealed" truth and its all-too-earthly human potentates. It is often said—and was said by Ratzinger when he was an underling of the last Roman prelate—that Islam is not capable of a Reformation. We would not even have this word in our language if the Roman Catholic Church had been able to have its own way. Now its new reactionary leader has really "offended" the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without.[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-19-2006, 11:50 AM   #210
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Good grief, how much can a speech do? I was just on my home page and there's an unbelievable amount of venom going on over this stuff. I've been on this forum for three years and I've never seen anything like it.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com