assholes that enjoy freedom everyday but dont want a country to go to war over rights broken. Our greatest things were won with war. our independenc..democracy was introduced..freedom of Africans...communism is mostly gone..except for some damn Asians. and France is communist too..they supported Hitler...they support Seddam...what more do u need? and once again..why do hippies and anti americans think this war is unjustifiable just casue we want the craziest man outta power? do u think Saddam killing innocient ppl is better than us killing. well maybe u should see what happens after the fighting..US soldiers go over and help the wounded on the other side..or were u just up your anti american ass so far u couldnt see that? well before u cricize, look at both sides of thing.
look thru the history of america...name one war that didnt have a purpose...not so fast anti war bitch!
the Star Spangled Banner came from war!
Comment submitted with request to Delete: "In short, this entry is hateful, offensive, inaccurate and incoherent.
This particular entry transcends the boundary from the inaccurate and diametrically opposed subjective definitions submitted by other users into a barely coherent, inaccurate, offensive diatribe which does little but serve to question the sanity of its maker.
His basic premise "Our greatest things were won with war" is questionable on obvious grounds, though should be allowed to stand for the purpose of debate.
He seems then to claim that communism was defeated by war(and not, for argument's sake, economics)
"communism is mostly gone..except for some damn Asians."
Having insulted eceryone in South-East Asia, he moves into inaccuracy;"France is communist too"(yet they have a right-wing president, a free-market economy and a burgeoning fascist vote).
It seems our dear friend is also confused on the boundaries between fascism and communism, stating as his reasoning for his conclusion on France;"they supported Hitler...they support Seddam...what more do u need? " Aside from being as laughably inaccurate as praising the avionics of farmyard animals (I wonder how he'd react if he knew where the statue of liberty came from) this is quite a sensitive issue and rather offensive to the French people.
Finally, in his spiral of ill-informed rage, he loses coherence "do u think Saddam killing innocient ppl is better than us killing." and "well before u cricize, look at both sides of thing."
The disturbing effect of this post reaches boiling point with his final line,
"the Star Spangled Banner came from war!"
Its effect makes one rather worried for the poor mind that created it."
the Star Spangled Banner came from war!
Comment submitted with request to Delete: "In short, this entry is hateful, offensive, inaccurate and incoherent.
This particular entry transcends the boundary from the inaccurate and diametrically opposed subjective definitions submitted by other users into a barely coherent, inaccurate, offensive diatribe which does little but serve to question the sanity of its maker.
His basic premise "Our greatest things were won with war" is questionable on obvious grounds, though should be allowed to stand for the purpose of debate.
He seems then to claim that communism was defeated by war(and not, for argument's sake, economics)
"communism is mostly gone..except for some damn Asians."
Having insulted eceryone in South-East Asia, he moves into inaccuracy;"France is communist too"(yet they have a right-wing president, a free-market economy and a burgeoning fascist vote).
It seems our dear friend is also confused on the boundaries between fascism and communism, stating as his reasoning for his conclusion on France;"they supported Hitler...they support Seddam...what more do u need? " Aside from being as laughably inaccurate as praising the avionics of farmyard animals (I wonder how he'd react if he knew where the statue of liberty came from) this is quite a sensitive issue and rather offensive to the French people.
Finally, in his spiral of ill-informed rage, he loses coherence "do u think Saddam killing innocient ppl is better than us killing." and "well before u cricize, look at both sides of thing."
The disturbing effect of this post reaches boiling point with his final line,
"the Star Spangled Banner came from war!"
Its effect makes one rather worried for the poor mind that created it."
by Vic September 13, 2003
Get the antiwar protestor mug.An insult worst than ur mum gay , your daddy lesbo , your granny tranny or your sister a mister
Every time it’s used Jupiter’s mass is doubled
Every time it’s used Jupiter’s mass is doubled
by Mr.sofcok May 11, 2018
Get the your ancestor a trans protester mug.Related Words
1. cheque writer.
2. to print (amount, mode of payment-ac payee, & co., etc.) on a cheque with a protectograph so as to authenticate that the cheque is genuine.
2. to print (amount, mode of payment-ac payee, & co., etc.) on a cheque with a protectograph so as to authenticate that the cheque is genuine.
by uttam maharjan May 28, 2010
Get the protectograph mug.A soul protector is a family member or animal that has passed and is watching over you and protecting your soul and emotions, you can often feel there presence and peacefulness.
by Fuck boy bitch fanny ass cunte February 10, 2021
Get the Soul protector mug.An individual who is able to think for themself.
Having been taught 'how' to think rather than 'what'to think.
Having been taught 'how' to think rather than 'what'to think.
by Mother March 25, 2003
Get the antiwar protestor mug.Since 1517, Protestants have been Christians who are not Catholic nor Orthodox. They split from Roman Catholicism because of corruption in that church. Protestants are very diverse in beliefs, but they tend to believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of authority in matters of Christianity, not a pope or "Holy Tradition" as in Catholicism. Since Protestant is an umbrella term, one cannot discuss the specific beliefs of Protestants in depth.
Why do Protestants reject Catholic authority? I apologize if this offends you, but here's why. The Catholic Church asserts that the Bible is just as much a source of doctrine as "Holy Tradition," but the Bible makes the statement, (Colossians 2:8) "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Jesus once said, (Matthew 15:3) "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" to the Pharisees, because they elevated their traditions to the status of God's revealed Truth.
Catholics claim the pope is able to make infallible statements, but this obviously isn't true. It stands to reason that two infallible statements can never contradict each other, yes? In 1302, Pope Bonafice VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctam, said, ""We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This infallible statement would have it that to be saved, all people must be Catholic. Remember, it's supposed to be INFALLIBLE. In the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which is supposed to be "infallible" in Catholicism, in the document Lumen Gentium, article 16, it is written, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” This is an obvious contradiction! Therefore, neither the pope nor ecumenical councils are infallible.
Catholics frequently break God's commandments. For instance, Jesus said, (Matthew 23:9) "Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Yet Catholics call the bishop of Rome "Pope," from the Latin word for "father." Catholics often refer to their priests as "Father."
Catholics claim that Jesus said He would build His Church on Simon Peter, whom they say was the first pope. Yet, the original Greek reveals that He said no such thing. Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this Petra I will build my church." Jesus used two different words. Petros means "a little rock," and Petra means "rock." Jesus was referring to Himself with Petra, as this is the word used to signify Jesus in the symbolism of a Stone (cf. ). Jesus calls Peter a "little rock" because He is, as a believer, a building-block in the Temple of God (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, Rev. 3:12), but not the foundation. Otherwise, Jesus would have named Simon "Petra," not "Petros." Peter himself identified that "rock" as Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 2:4-9. And when Jesus gave the "keys" to Peter, Jesus said the same thing to all the other apostles in Matthew 18:18.
Peter himself said that one of the qualifications for someone to be an apostle is being "with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." None of Peter's successors were even alive in Jesus' first coming, and so they do not qualify as apostles with apostolic authority according to Peter himself! This is another reason why the pope does not have the authority he professes.
Furthermore, both the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim to use traditions to define doctrine. Why should a Protestant follow Catholic traditions instead of Orthodox traditions? Not to mention that there are many traditions, some of which conflict with each other. For instance, Church Father Tertullian believed in traducianism - if that's a tradition, why don't Catholics believe it, too?
For these reasons and more, Protestants reject the pope's authority and rely solely on the Bible, for it alone is "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15)
Why do Protestants reject Catholic authority? I apologize if this offends you, but here's why. The Catholic Church asserts that the Bible is just as much a source of doctrine as "Holy Tradition," but the Bible makes the statement, (Colossians 2:8) "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Jesus once said, (Matthew 15:3) "Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" to the Pharisees, because they elevated their traditions to the status of God's revealed Truth.
Catholics claim the pope is able to make infallible statements, but this obviously isn't true. It stands to reason that two infallible statements can never contradict each other, yes? In 1302, Pope Bonafice VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctam, said, ""We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This infallible statement would have it that to be saved, all people must be Catholic. Remember, it's supposed to be INFALLIBLE. In the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which is supposed to be "infallible" in Catholicism, in the document Lumen Gentium, article 16, it is written, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” This is an obvious contradiction! Therefore, neither the pope nor ecumenical councils are infallible.
Catholics frequently break God's commandments. For instance, Jesus said, (Matthew 23:9) "Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." Yet Catholics call the bishop of Rome "Pope," from the Latin word for "father." Catholics often refer to their priests as "Father."
Catholics claim that Jesus said He would build His Church on Simon Peter, whom they say was the first pope. Yet, the original Greek reveals that He said no such thing. Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Petros, and on this Petra I will build my church." Jesus used two different words. Petros means "a little rock," and Petra means "rock." Jesus was referring to Himself with Petra, as this is the word used to signify Jesus in the symbolism of a Stone (cf. ). Jesus calls Peter a "little rock" because He is, as a believer, a building-block in the Temple of God (cf. 1 Pet. 2:5, Rev. 3:12), but not the foundation. Otherwise, Jesus would have named Simon "Petra," not "Petros." Peter himself identified that "rock" as Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 2:4-9. And when Jesus gave the "keys" to Peter, Jesus said the same thing to all the other apostles in Matthew 18:18.
Peter himself said that one of the qualifications for someone to be an apostle is being "with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." None of Peter's successors were even alive in Jesus' first coming, and so they do not qualify as apostles with apostolic authority according to Peter himself! This is another reason why the pope does not have the authority he professes.
Furthermore, both the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim to use traditions to define doctrine. Why should a Protestant follow Catholic traditions instead of Orthodox traditions? Not to mention that there are many traditions, some of which conflict with each other. For instance, Church Father Tertullian believed in traducianism - if that's a tradition, why don't Catholics believe it, too?
For these reasons and more, Protestants reject the pope's authority and rely solely on the Bible, for it alone is "able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15)
Anglicans, Baptists, Episcopalianss, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostalists, and Presbyterians are all Protestant denominations of Christianity.
by Brian an t-Albannach August 31, 2008
Get the Protestant mug.Someone that is not against the war or its cause, it is someone that is just too scared to fight. See: Pussy Liberal Anti-American Hippie Democrat All Ivy League College Students
Johny: Hey look at that douche bag protesting, he is unthankful to those people in the military who believe in what they do for this country.
Charlie: Is that a swaztika on his arm?
Johny: Probably, this freedom of speech thing is way out of control, lousy democrats
Charlie: Is that a swaztika on his arm?
Johny: Probably, this freedom of speech thing is way out of control, lousy democrats
by Womack March 8, 2005
Get the antiwar protestor mug.