New Russian fighter...wow!

"Benjamin Dover" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan writes:

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
suffer from the same misconception.

Wow, another subject in which Anthony doesn't know **** from shinola.

Only a fool would believe that would stop Anthony from butting in.

"Highflyer" wrote in :


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
name of big oil?


We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.


If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as
morally reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.


Bertie

Hi Bertie,

I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just
don't understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a
bill introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost
billions and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.

You gotta love the capitol EVIL!

Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing
people in other countries.

It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better
than spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe
they are just working on the population problem.


Like lemmings.

Bertie

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 18, 9:40 pm, "Highflyer" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in
6.130...



Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in
the name of big oil?

We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.

If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as
morally reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.

Bertie

Hi Bertie,

I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just
don't understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a
bill introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost
billions and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing
people in other countries.

It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better
than spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe
they are just working on the population problem.

Highflyer

Oh boy...

I think we're about to start the next "debbil made me do it"
thread....


I thought God told him to invade Iraq.


Pity he didn;t give him a bit of a heads up about the WMD at the same
time.

Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual
war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.


Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
throughout the unenlightened world.


Yeah, like the Bible Belt.



Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

n Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual
war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

Nope.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan writes:

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
suffer from the same misconception.

Much like your misconception that you have any contact with reality
whatsoever


Bertie