pinions of buddy don: kin ye win agin satan usin lies?

thays passages in the bible bout how satan is the father of lies or jes bout how he uses lies. take john 8:44 fer eggzample:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

or thays the time in the garden of eden whar he wuz temptin adam n eve with the lie that they wood becum lack god ifn they wuz to eat the forbidden fruit.

then ye gut yer basick "by thar fruits ye will know them" line of thankin, fer instunts, matthew 7:16:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

or matthew 7:20:

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

point is them publicans gut the christchun fundamentalist right wing in thar pocket, so why is it they keep showin everbidy how thar a'usin lies to try to win? whuts wurser is they aint even bleevabull lies. take cheney at the deebate tuther nite. heres sum of the whoppers he tole (im takin most of em frum factcheck.org, the one he lied bout proovin how he hadnt lied bout halliburton even tho turns out factcheck.org sed he did; notice that they dont cut edward no slack neethur):

1. he claimd he hadnt met john edwards till the deebate, but rite away that wuz proovd a lie.
2. he claimd he wuz doin his job in the senate most ever tuesdy, but the facks show he only cum to visit publicans, not to preside. ackshul record shows how in the last four years, john edwards has presided over the senate the eggzack same number of times as cheney: 2.
3. he claimd, lack mr bush lacks to do, that kerry n edwards voted fer the war, when whut the voted fer wuz a resolushun that sed:

   The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

   also note how edwards made this statement at the time of the vote:

   I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.
   
   If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.
   
   Second, stro,ng domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.
   
   Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

4. cheney claimd the u.s. hadnt had 90% of the coalishun casualties (why dont they call em killt people?) but only 50%, but that figgers that the iraqis gittin killt wuz part of the coalishun.
5. then thays this analysis of his statements frum the new york daily news:

   Cheney still makes the case for invading Iraq without apology. It was, he says, the singularly logical next step to prevent terrorists from descending on an American city with horrific weapons "in a suitcase."
   
   That case rests on other of his core claims: Iraq was a nest of jihadist terrorists; Saddam Hussein had close, working ties with the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned 9/11; he had a robust WMD program, including an incipient nuclear weapon; the postwar occupation would be short and sweet.
   All wrong, as Edwards tried but struggled to point out.
   
   For the average voter, it's hard to sift through the high-decibel propaganda of the two campaigns, plus the grim cascade of headlines about Iraq. So many Americans aren't fully aware just how poorly the vice president's claims are faring in the court of reality.
   A review of the week's news:
   
   Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded the 9/11 panel's finding that the United States had no evidence of close, operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. (He then tried to retract this burst of candor.) At the debate, the vice president tried to tell you he'd never insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. At debate's end, a truth-squadding NBC promptly aired a Meet the Press tape from 2003 in which Cheney did just that.
   
   Paul Bremer, who ran the Coalition Provisional Authority, has given two speeches saying the failure to put enough troops into Iraq after Hussein fell was a fatal error that enabled the insurgency. He didn't say, but could have, that this error stemmed in part from Cheney's unfounded "they'll greet us with flowers" optimism.
   
   The chief U.S. weapons inspector said Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not possess or have concrete plans to make WMD. In other words, the inspections and sanctions begun after the Gulf War had limited the threat. The new round of inspections President Bush had masterfully induced the United Nations to begin would eventually have demonstrated that fact - if the inspections hadn't been shortcircuited by the invasion.

by thar fruits ye will know them. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

pure bible. aint that a warnin bout who ye a'gone foller?