Michael A. Peroutka Law Practice

Netpub, military isn't an issue for you because you obviously lack understanding. Either we fight the terrorists abroad or we fight them in our suburbs, pizza parlors, bus stations, and all the other places they like to blow themselves up in.

Unlike Peroutka, Bush doesn't have a yellow strike down his back. Peroutka's military intelligence is basically that of the new Spain leader (I forget his name). He basically said that the terrorists won and scared him and his soldiers back home to momma.

You might not like Bush in alot of areas (neither do I), but he is doing a fantastic job in his most important role (commander in chief).

 

Another typical smear tactic by Demopublicans - insinuate something and declare the person guilty unless proven innocent.

 

Terry, if it weren't for the fact that I strongly believe my role in life is that of pastor/teacher, I would have signed up for the military years ago. You know, if you want to question a guys spine, call Peroutka.

 

I used to be a proud Republican, I would march into the voting booth and vote straight down the party line. They one day I started actually thinking for myself. I realized that there are pro-abortion Republicans, pro-gay Republicans, BIG governmetn Republicans, etc. I then understood the danger of my blind pary loyalty. I repented of my sins, and now vote for the candidate that has the best principles and policys for our country, regardless of their political party. When I go in the voting booth in November I will vote for conservative Republicans, conservative Constitutionalists, conservative Libertarians and, if I can find any, conservative Democrats.

 

Amazing that Peroutka's wife turned her own flesh and blood into the big, bad government. Actually it isn't. Peroutka is just another liberal con who has deceived the moralists.

 

Bottom line on Peroutka's wife: failure as a mom. She would be a horrible role model.

 

A question: Are Bushbots more dangerous to liberty in these United States than Kerry supporters? I am starting to think that the answer may very well be "yes" as I am not sure there is a bottom to how low the Bushbots will go to defend their highly flawed candidate.

 

DD, this is one of the many threads on the board that you again rant and rave, yet seem to make no sense. I think I am starting to see a patern with you.

Do you think the terrorist woke up on September 11th and decided to attack us? The terrorist have always hated us, September 11th, wasn't the first time they attacked us. This so called "war on terror" didn't start on 9/11, and it won't end if Bush get's elected for another term.

I agree with Howard Phillips, who said the following in 2001:

Several Presidential administration, after having promised to take decisive action against terrorists, failed to comprehensively and thoroughly do so. Think how many thousands of lives would have been saved if Osama bin Laden and his ilk had been taken out during the Clinton Administration.

The events of September 11 were not, as high officials have suggested, an attack on freedom and democracy, rather, they were a manifestation of Islamic fanaticism. Unconstitutional interventionism on the part of the government of the United States, over many decades, has made America a target of hostility in many places all over the world. U.S. participation in U.N. interventions in the Balkans and our effort to play "power broker" in the Middle East have exacted a price.

The Executive Order prohibiting assassination should be revoked by President Bush. It is never moral to make innocent non-combatants a primary target. It would have been much more just, for example, for the U.S. military, to have assassinated Saddam Hussein and his immediate cohorts than to have placed at risk the Iraqi civilian population, U.S. military personnel, or even politically disengaged Iraqi soldiers.

 

In the other thread you said that you don't believe that Christians are "called" or "led" by the Holy Spirit. I am starting to see by your testimony, or lack thereof, that there really are some Christians who are not "called" or "led". You said you want to be a pastor, I hope they teach you how to be a Christian first. Your not over at pastor Jim Henry's church are you?

 

Blame it on whatever you want. But once again you lack understanding as far as the military is involved.

No matter who is at fault, how do you fight it now? You and the rest of your ilk would only fight if we were attacked.

Further, the US has interests all over the world. Like it or not, this is a global community. When we and are friends and allies are attacked, we (since we have the ability) should intervene.

We disagree over this issue so much so that we will never see the other issues I guess. Oh well. I would not be upset if Peroutka won. I just hope Nader hurts Kerry worse than Peroutka does Bush.

 

1. That isn't what I said. If you want to smear someone, just do exactly what you are doing now: ignore facts because you are in an enraged stuper.

2. Okay.

3. Please explain how what I have typed is unchristian. Time to put up.

4. Not a chance. You don't happen to attend Central in Sanford do you?

 

Here is the thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2282.html?

I consider that a very un-christian comment, I don't have time to dig up the rest you have made on the many other threads on the board.

No I got to River of Life in Deltona.

 

If you believe this, enlist in the military and go fight, unless, like Bush, you would rather let others do your fighting for you. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me see. Would I rather fight the war in my yard or in their yard.

I think their yard.

But if Herrington wishes maybe he can arrange to have it fought in HIS yard. </font>[/QUOTE]First off, I don't have a yard.

Also, the yard is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

Thank You!!

I don't know of anyone from any party including the Constitution Party that was against using our military to go after Osama and those who attacked us on 9/11. But, I do know many who are against the current administrations, globalist mission of spreading democracy around the world.

 

By this logic, President and Mrs. Bush are bad parents due to the problems with the law that their daughters have had.

By this logic, former President and Mrs. Bush are bad parents due to the problems with the law that their son, our current President Bush, has had.

By this logic, whenever one of your children does something wrong, especially in their middle teen years when they're so sweet and innocent , we can all say that you and your wife are bad parents.

My parents had a lot of trouble with my older brother, albeit he never accused either of them of a crime, but he had enough problems with the law to spend quite a few nights in jail, have to be on probation, and being dismissed as a candidate for the fire department, yet I have turned out completely different than he. Why is that? We were raised the same, by the same two parents. Could it be that we are actually individual people with brains and the ability to think for ourselves and conjure up any evils that our sinful bodies would love to partake in?

Why is it that those who will so staunchly defend Bush from every single allegation thrown his, even those from pretty credible sources formerly in his administration, are the first ones to take an article from a far-left wing publication against Mr. Peroutka and his wife as the gospel?

I have defended Mr. Bush and I will defend Mr. Peroutka. Until something is proven, either in a court or through 100% reliable evidence, then I will simply scoff at such articles as fairy tales made up to muddy the images of ALL of the candidates.

Paul was evil before he was born again and could never have been elected President. This country loves too much to focus on a person's past rather than what or whom that person has become. It's really a shame and it's the reason we do not see more good people running for office. Who wants to have everything they've ever done in their lives put under a microscope and examined to determine the saintliness of the person throughout their lives?

 

Isn't this just a little low - choosing to insult the man's mother?

Kinda like - "O yeah, well your mother wears combat boots."

Lets move beyond this kind of "argument" fellas.

 

Sure. Those who are most eager to see others sent to have their limbs blown off or blood spilled usually have better plans for themselves.

 

And neither are you. And neither am I. And neither is anyone else.