Educating the ignorant Kumbaya candidate

[DeclinetoState]

By Michelle Malkin • July 16, 2008 08:16 AM

My syndicated column today looks at Barack Obama’s dopey, dangerous views on ending jihad with “understanding.” He shouldn’t be protesting cartoons. He is a walking, talking cartoon.
***
Diplomas won’t make jihadis go away, Barack
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

In all the brouhaha over the New Yorker’s satirical cover cartoon (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama/) of Barack and Michelle Obama, a truly “tasteless and offensive” passage in the magazine’s feature article got lost. The magazine piece quotes Obama’s recommendations for how to stop jihad in a local Chicago newspaper op-ed he had published eight days after the September 11 terrorist attacks. It’s a self-parody (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza/?yrail) of blind, deaf, and dumb Kumbaya liberalism:

“We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”
More (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/16/educating-the-ignorant-kumbaya-candidate/)

[Maggie_T]

“We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness ... bleat, bleat, bleat ... Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”


Oh, well, then. As long as it grows out of "poverty and despair," and not racial hatred and religious fanaticism, I guess terrorism is easier to accept and justify.

Of all the idiotic liberalspeak ... :flame:

And what about all those who, in spite of poverty and despair, still manage to be decent folk, and don't go about bombing others because they have more than them?

And what about those who, in spite of poverty and despair, continue to struggle ahead and try to make a decent living? Some actually succeed. Heck, some even become rich.

HUSSEIN is a babbling baboon who makes a mockery of all those poor decent people. A plage on the monkey!

Man, I'd give anything to be able to tell him that to his stupid, purple-lipped mug. Just ten minutes with this jug-eared Pharisee. I can say plenty in that time. Even if it's the last thing I do.

[DesertFox]

Most often ... it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair No. Most often it grows out of what one is taught from the time he's two.

[Maggie_T]

Exactly.

[gnome]

I'd like to jump into this to address one issue that I think is being dismissed unfairly.

You're arguing that Barack is mistaking the primary motivation. Would you argue that to the extreme, that poverty has no impact at all on someone's willingness to take up arms against people they've been taught to hate?

[Maggie_T]

I'd like to jump into this to address one issue that I think is being dismissed unfairly.

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

You're arguing that Barack is mistaking the primary motivation. Would you argue that to the extreme, that poverty has no impact at all on someone's willingness to take up arms against people they've been taught to hate?

Nobody said that, gnome. But while HUSSEIN babbles plenty about the effects of poverty, the bastard says NOTHING about they real reason why Islamofascists want America dead: HATRED. Islamofascists, regardless whether they are rich or poor, HATE the Great Satan (that's you and me, dear).

If HUSSEIN has said something to the effect of "... and unfortunately, poor people are taught to hate," nobody would have said anything.

But true to his hypocritical fashion, he babbled about poverty and never mentioned a word about the true reason behind Islamofascism's terrorism: HATRED FOR THE WEST, ESPECIALLY AMERICA.

And don't you agree with me that he insults poor decent people who don't go about hating and killing people? No. You wouldn't.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You're arguing that Barack is mistaking the primary motivation. Would you argue that to the extreme, that poverty has no impact at all on someone's willingness to take up arms against people they've been taught to hate?
Osama bin Laden and most of his cohorts were/are wealthy. The 9/11 terrorists were all well-to-do. The London terrorists were mostly wealthy physicians. Etc., etc., etc.

[Lazarus]

I guess that drives a stake in the heart of that arguement...

Well said, Tex - you beat me to it...

Hatred is a self-inflicted wound - It does NOT grow out of poverty or deprivation... For everyone of those terrorists one might point to who grows up in poverty, I can show you 1000's in abject poverty who don't commit their lives to randomly murdering people who don't worship their God...

Terrorism is a volitional choice - Like all sins... It is activism gone to its farthest extreme... One's environment has nothing to do with it... It is the result of the choice to give into hatred, bitterness, and the projection of blame on others for one's circumstances...

[Maggie_T]

Well, since Michell Malkin said that in the article, I thought it would be superfluous to mention it again.

But I forgot I was talking to a liberal. Thanks, Tex.

[Lazarus]

Just to add to Tex's list of examples, the grandfather of all terrorism, Carlos the Jackal, was the bored, spoiled son of a wealthy physician...

[gnome]

I'm fine with admitting that there's plenty of people who are perfectly well off that are terrorists... and that there are plenty of poor people that aren't.

I'm asking if people here believe that it's a factor at all.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well, since Michell Malkin said that in the article, I thought it would be superfluous to mention it again.
And I wrote that before I read her article. I just now read it.

But I forgot I was talking to a liberal. Thanks, Tex.
Yes, we need to always keep that in mind. Your welcome.

[DesertFox]

The onliest poor people who engage in terrorism are those who are forced into it or those who got into it because it offered the chance to steal with relative impunity. Think about it: When you're really poor -- not America poor, but Third World poor -- you're hungry or at least mildly ill from malnutrition most of the time. You don't have the energy to engage in terror.

Terrorism is a rich kid's game. Some may do it to stave off boredom, but I think most get into terror because they're misfits who would otherwise just be in common crime. Maybe one terrorist in several hundred is in it because he seriously believes his own bullshit.

[Maggie_T]

What Fox said.

Gnome, I'll make it simple for you. Poverty could be one of the factors, but it's a very MINOR factor.

The only reason for terrorism is hatred and hunger for power. Period. The rest is all trimming.

Incidentally, how does poverty justify terrorism, in your view? No, no. I'm serious. You keep pushing poverty as if it somehow made terrorism more acceptable.

I am always freshly amazed at how liberals will forgive anyone anything if poverty is the "excuse."

[gnome]

I've been over this before... searching for the roots of evil is not to excuse it, but to learn ways of preventing.

[DesertFox]

Liberals seem to think that people in poor countries sit around brooding on how Americans have everything and they have nothing. That's bullshit. People in poor countries have real lives that engross them just as our lives engross us.

[FreeIndividual]

To liberals, there are two universal truths applicable to every problem in existence. The first is that the problem was caused by uncaring, inconsiderate, racist, selfish, dumb conservatives. The second is that they have the solution. And the solution always involves taking away something, either tangible or intangible from you.

Liberals think they can control the global climate. They think they can somehow make every aspect of life "fair" through legislation. They're so damned conceited, the EPA has recently decreased their former assessment (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,380447,00.html) of the value of a human life!

So of course evils oceans away will be approached in such a manner. You all are so intolerant of the views of others.

By the way, if poverty, ignorance, helplessness, and despair are what breeds terror; the United States should be pumping out jihadists by the second. The view Obamatypes have of this country is nothing but poverty, ignorance, helplessness, and despair.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I'd like to jump into this to address one issue that I think is being dismissed unfairly.

You're arguing that Barack is mistaking the primary motivation. Would you argue that to the extreme, that poverty has no impact at all on someone's willingness to take up arms against people they've been taught to hate?

Poverty and tyranny are the offspring of depravity; terrorism is the depravity of barbaric two-year-olds with facial hair.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I've been over this before... searching for the roots of evil is not to excuse it, but to learn ways of preventing.
The ONLY way to prevent the evil of terrorism is to kill the terrorists. Unfortunately, Barack HUSSEIN Obama only wants to appease the terrorists. Appeasing the terrorists will get us all killed.

[DesertFox]

Backing up what N-T said: Terrorists are murderers. They deserve death and society needs to be free of the threat of murder.

[Maggie_T]

I've been over this before...

YOU asked, mate.

searching for the roots of evil is not to excuse it, but to learn ways of preventing.

OMG, gnome. That's exactly what HUSSEIN babbles all the time. You learn fast, don't you, dear.

You don't get it, do you, kid. You cannot prevent hatred. No, no, don't give me any rot about sucking up to Islamofascists so they won't hate us. That is merely a liberal fantasy, an excuse NOT to fight terrorism because it will upset the moronic peacenik voters at Daily Kos.

There IS evil in this world, gnome, and yes, sometimes you find it among (gasp!) dark-skinned, 3rd world people. I know, I know, it is very politically incorrect. Nevertheless, it's the truth, whether you like it or not.

Islamofascists hate us because we are the complete opposite of what they are: free (including, free to worship), prosperous, powerful. No, no, dear. That's not because we exploit the poor in the 3rd world. We are prosperous and powerful because we are FREE.

Islamofascist, OTOH, are poor and ignorant because they are oppressed by crazy totalitarian fanatics with - as my friend Wyatt famously said - a religious hard on. And you CANNOT prevent that.

And as Fox said, contrary to what liberals believe, poor people in the 3rd world do not spend their day growling about how Big Bad America screwes them consistently. In fact, most of them dream they could come to Big Bad America and make a decent living.

FreeIndividual also had a brilliant point when he said "By the way, if poverty, ignorance, helplessness, and despair are what breeds terror; the United States should be pumping out jihadists by the second. The view Obamatypes have of this country is nothing but poverty, ignorance, helplessness, and despair."

And the sooner you get all that in your thick, liberal skull, they better you will understand where the "roots" of evil really are.

[gnome]

I already know we disagree on that. But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't mean that I'm lying about my reasons.

[Kathy30]

Obamination made up his ideal terrorist and ran with the ball hoping no one would notice. The 19 9/11 hijackers like most suicide bombers were from affluent families and well-educated. They had neither poverty nor despair. However, if you want to tell your audience that if you don't redistribute wealth, you'll have your own suicide bombers, the truth won't do.

[hdmundt]

Terrorism is a rich kid's game. Some may do it to stave off boredom, but I think most get into terror because they're misfits who would otherwise just be in common crime. Maybe one terrorist in several hundred is in it because he seriously believes his own bullshit.

:claps:

The point about malnutrition is spot-on, too. The planning and financing of terrorist activities isn't done by those suffering hunger-pangs. The rich kids do those things. The best the poor-guys can achieve is to become the pawns, i.e., the expendible ones, of the rich kids. You know, the ones who care so deeply about the poor.

[cerberus]

Gnome, I know what you (and essentially Obama) are getting at and yes you are to a large extent correct, it's just the majority of people on this board don't want to listen to what you have to say as it interferes with their black-and-white outlook on the GWOT and the 'bombs solve everything' mentality that often permiates here.

Frist, the truth is, yes, there exists that hard-core of ultra-militant Islamists that no matter how much education or prosperity they get will always be gunning for the West, and the US in particulare because they regard us as decadent infidel-crusaders and they want to establish a global caliphate and drag us all into the 9th century. These people do, in fact, need a bullet to the head....

HOWEVER, the point I believe you (and Obama) are making are toward targeting the underlying framework of ignorance and lack of education that allows breeding conditions for such people to exist and thrive. What improved education and it's eventual offspring, improved economic development, do is serve to undercut the support-network that allows such groups to grow and be tolerated. Exposure to a education brings with it other trappings of what we would call "civil-society", such as economic growth and stability which then do more in the long run to deflate general fanaticism. Take Afghanistan for instance. We were able to rout the Taliban in short order after 9/11 militarily, but recently have had setbacks despite NATO's unquestioned firepower superiority. What is going to win the Afgans over in the long run are the much-maligned civil society programs; education in particular (especially female education IMO). It's not as sexy as an airstrike with cruise missiles but its the real recipe for long-term success.

While Malkin deride the idea that more contact between cultures will help as naive, studies show otherwise. A broad-based education and some exposure to other countries and cultures helps to humanize people that are otherwise abstracted and then easily villified. Take Iran for example, you can often meet Iranians who decry the US but when asked about Americans will often say "oh yes, I like the Americans i have met very much!" Hell, look at this board as a good little microcosm of that in reverse. You get many people who have had little to no real interaction with Muslims or been outside the US and they rail against "Camel-humpers", Europeans and the like in fairly vicious terms. But then you get others that have experienced a little more, like Rhino for instance, who while taking a hard line against the crazies also point out that all Muslims aren't terrible people, he's worked with them etc etc. When you actually meet people from other backgrounds, or even learn more about them, stereotypes and hatreds get broken down in a very real way.

Of course education won't weed out all the crazies, but it makes them and their ideas less prone to taking root and being tolerated. The US, a relatively well-educated society has had its share of nuts, the Unibomber Ted Kaczynski (went to MIT), Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, the KKK etc are examples, but they are largely not accepted or tolerated and their message marginalized as the population won't accept it. The same general rule can apply here. You won't end the problem with education, but it's probably your best tool in the long-run.

[DeclinetoState]

HOWEVER, the point I believe you (and Obama) are making are toward targeting the underlying framework of ignorance and lack of education that allows breeding conditions for such people to exist and thrive. What improved education and it's eventual offspring, improved economic development, do is serve to undercut the support-network that allows such groups to grow and be tolerated. Exposure to a education brings with it other trappings of what we would call "civil-society", such as economic growth and stability which then do more in the long run to deflate general fanaticism. Take Afghanistan for instance. We were able to rout the Taliban in short order after 9/11 militarily, but recently have had setbacks despite NATO's unquestioned firepower superiority. What is going to win the Afgans over in the long run are the much-maligned civil society programs; education in particular (especially female education IMO). It's not as sexy as an airstrike with cruise missiles but its the real recipe for long-term success.
1. Who has created the societies that de-value education in so many Muslim countries?

2. Who has created the nascent education system that is taking root in Afghanistan?

We don't want to see innocent men, women and children being blown to smithereens, and we're trying to create education systems that empower them to make better lives for themselves. But given that the Islamic world is pretty big, and that some Muslims (like the bin Laden family) are very well-to-do, and that their religion supposedly values activities to better the lives of the poor (part of the point behind fasting during Ramadan is to help Muslims who have remember what it's like for those who don't), why haven't the Muslims created societies for themselves where everyone (including females) is educated and has an opportunity to improve himself or herself? Why are so many Islamic countries, if not in the 9th or 10th centuries socially, politically, and economically, nevertheless several centuries behind the European and North American countries? They've been around longer, and many of these impoverished Islamic countries are rich in natural resources (and not just oil, either).

[Kathy30]

Get two muslims together. They will both say they like Americans very much.

One of the muslims will come to you and tell you that the other muslim told them privately how much they hate the infidels generally and Americans in particular.

Then the other muslim will come to you and tell you how much the first muslim has had conversations with them, he also hates Americans and believes that all infidels should die.

Both are telling the truth. They are both really nice guys.

I had a muslim secretary that was very Ameicanized. No one could tell her from any other professional young woman. She was shopping at the mall and two salesmen were muslim. In speaking among themselves they were joking about how she should be killed. She understood everything they said and gave them a loud piece of her mind in Arabic.

[Tazeeyore]

Well, I see psychobabble is not inherently exclusive to the white uberliberal socialists in academia. It seems that ignorant black socialists are also smitten by the insane need to appease bloody terroristis at all costs. No matter the end result. You would think that any prudent person could see that, historically, appeasement does not work against islamic fanatics. The Clinton administrations' philosophy is proof positive that this stunningly stupid approach leads to catastophic results. Why does Obamma, supposedly an educated person, ignore the obvious falacy of this method of dealing with bloodthirsty maniac muslims? I think he is on their side and want's America to fall prey to this evil. It is that, or he is the most ignorant person to ever run for the presidency. In either case we cannot afford for this malevolent malcontent to be elected President.

[Maggie_T]

I already know we disagree on that. But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't mean that I'm lying about my reasons.

Oh, come off it, gnome. Who said anything about you lying?

The fact that you don't want to see the obvious does not mean you're lying.

As someone once said, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. And the "fact" you stick to like coral to a reef is the myth about hunger invariably translating into the urge to go about killing people. That's the excuse you and people like Obama give in order to do nothing. I said it before, but it's worth repeating.

There's no blinder man than he who refuses to see.

[Maggie_T]

Gnome, I know what you (and essentially Obama) are getting at and yes you are to a large extent correct, it's just the majority of people on this board don't want to listen to what you have to say as it interferes with their black-and-white outlook on the GWOT and the 'bombs solve everything' mentality that often permiates here.



You do realize that that can be turned completely around and be applied to you and your ilk, don't you, mutt.

It can just as easily - and accurately - be said that it's just that the majority of liberals don't want to listen to what conservatives have to say as it interferes with their black-and-white outlook on the GWOT and the "poverty justifies terrorism/we should appease terrotists, not fight them" mentality that permeates (please notice the correct spelling of the word) leftism."

The rest of your post goes on in your typical lame fashion -usual spelling errors included - so I won't bother to go into it.

[Wolfcounsel]

Poverty has as much to do with hate as wealth does. Look at Soros, for example. And please, you clowns out there. Don't tell me rich monkeys are mad that there are poor starving people around.

There is a mad power grab for the world, from the top on down to the lowest-ranked public servant, and countless millions of private individuals. This "jihad" is just another of those attempts by Caliph wannabes from the Sand Monkey cult. Their followers hope to reap what is taken, along with the head asshole, if that takeover happens.

[Maggie_T]

Originally Posted by DesertFox http://www.freeconservatives.com/images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=702563#post702563)
Terrorism is a rich kid's game. Some may do it to stave off boredom, but I think most get into terror because they're misfits who would otherwise just be in common crime. Maybe one terrorist in several hundred is in it because he seriously believes his own bullshit.

:claps:


The point about malnutrition is spot-on, too. The planning and financing of terrorist activities isn't done by those suffering hunger-pangs. The rich kids do those things.

Don't I know it! I went to college with these morons. I think I was one of the few who actually worked to pay for my tuition. 99% of them were spoiled brats from rich families, all sporting the latest Che Guevara chic costume, not to mention attitude. They would have been revolting had they not been so ridiculous.

The best the poor-guys can achieve is to become the pawns, i.e., the expendible ones, of the rich kids. You know, the ones who care so deeply about the poor.


Exactly.

I take you, too, had to suffer the company of these brats at one time, hd.

[Timberwolf]

Terrorists are the rich, playground bullies who won't stop until they are MADE to stop. You can get the teachers (Brown, Sarkozy, Kohler, Medvedev, Jeffrey, etc) and/or the principal (the UN) to talk to them until they're blue in the face and NOTHING will be accomplished until someone knocks them on their ass.

"War is not the best way of settling one's differences; it is, however, the only way of preventing their being settled for you ~~~ GK Chesterton"

Wise words...and just as pertinent today as when they were first spoken.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Speaking of spoiled brats: Let us not forget Barack Hussein Obama and Michelle Obama, spoiled to the core.

[DoctorDoom]

Why is it that liberals are utterly incapable of understanding that humanity is fundamentally and eternally E-V-I-L? Given a culture where that evil is not suppressed, it will run amok. And Islamocracies are such cultures. They're run by hate-obsessed "leaders" who justify their hatred by the psychotic ramblings of their insane, pedophilic "prophet".

The sooner the liberals pull their heads out of their recta and study what is being taught in the mosques and the schools of those demon-worshipping shitholes, the sooner they will realize that the only effective solution is to render it impossible for them to imperil anyone else.

Fact time, liberals: you cannot talk to monsters. You cannot compromise with monsters. You cannot appease monsters. You have only two choices: you can surrender to the monsters and hope that you will be the last one whom the medieval barbarians will behead, or you can kick their camel-raping asses back to the stone age (actually just a short punt) and render them powerless.

You don't try to be nice with rabid animals. You kill them and put them out of their and your misery.

If push comes to shove, liberals ...

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M2.jpg" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Plus.png" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M1.jpg" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Equl.png" />

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/M3.jpg" /></center>

[Kathy30]

I'd like to jump into this to address one issue that I think is being dismissed unfairly.

You're arguing that Barack is mistaking the primary motivation. Would you argue that to the extreme, that poverty has no impact at all on someone's willingness to take up arms against people they've been taught to hate?

Didn't you answer your own question? If they have been taught to hate, then poverty doesn't even enter into the equasion. They have been taught to hate.

[DoctorDoom]

Kumbaya (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Videos/Kumbaya.swf)

[Wyatt_Junker]

Cerb's sig.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

- Dwight David Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1963


Emo lyrics make me cry.

[MaximumSam]

Is there any better argument for the seperation of church and state than Islamic run countries? Why do people want to blow up Americans? Because people use religion as a way to subvert reason, and they can get people to follow them.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Is there any better argument for the seperation of mosque and state than Islamic run countries? Why do people want to blow up Americans? Because muslims use islam as a way to subvert reason, and they can get people to follow them.

All better.

[Naturalized-Texan]

All better.
It's good that you corrected Sham's glaring errors. :claps:

[Neil Peart]

Is there any better argument for the seperation of church and state than Islamic run countries? Why do people want to blow up Americans? Because people use religion as a way to subvert reason, and they can get people to follow them.You're using the liberal fallacy that all religions are the same.

All your so-called separation of church and state is is a front for getting rid of religion and traditional morality.

[Maggie_T]

Why is it that liberals are utterly incapable of understanding that humanity is fundamentally and eternally E-V-I-L?

It's not that they don't understand it, Doc. It's more the case that, as usual, liberals are selective about whom they call evil.

Conservatives, for example, are constantly being calle EVIL by liberals. All the time. And then, there are different varieties of conservatives that are particularly evil: white males, Christian white males, American Christian white males, rich white males (religion nondenominational), white males in the military, straight white males in the military (and elsewhere).

So you see, Doc, it's not that they don't understand. It's just that it depends on which group is being mentioned at the moment.

And just as conservatives - in all their varieties - are invariably EVIL, there are groups that, no matter how truly evil they are, cannot, under any circumstance, be called evil. Those are: dark-skinned people, American dark-skinned people, poor dark-skinned people, Non-American dark-skinned people, non-Christian dark-skinned people, rich America-hating dark-skinned people, etc. But especially America-hating poor dark-skinned people. To call them EVIL is very bad manners. Not politically correct at all. A major no-no in liberals' book. Even when that particular group is bombing innocent American people into oblivion, right under liberals' nose, they will never, EVER, call them EVIL. You see, it's not that those poor dark-skinned, non-Christian people are EVIL. It's America who, somehow somewhere in time, made them evil.

Simple, really.

[Maggie_T]

You're using the liberal fallacy that all religions are the same.

All your so-called separation of church and state is is a front for getting rid of religion and traditional morality.


:claps: Thank you, Neil.

[DoctorDoom]

All better.Kudos, WJ. But Sham is a liberal, and liberals LUVVVVV Islam. They hate only Christianity.

[MaximumSam]

You're using the liberal fallacy that all religions are the same.

Just all the ones I've heard of. Christians have been killing people for a pretty long time. In fact, there was a name for history when Christianity ran Western civilization. We call it the Dark Ages. Right now, countries which have tied their horse to religion, such as Iran, are going through their own Dark Ages.

[Maggie_T]

Correction, Sham: Islamofascists never LEFT the Dark Ages.

[DoctorDoom]

Just all the ones I've heard of. Christians have been killing people for a pretty long time. In fact, there was a name for history when Christianity ran Western civilization. We call it the Dark Ages. Typical atheist road apples. I defy you, heathen, to demoinstrate via chapter and verse that Christ Jesus commanded "Christians" to commit such evil acts in His name. If you cannot do so, you will evince yet again that you are just another clueless, Godless bigot.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Yeah, the whole Secular Age has been such a winning success. That whole tacky religion-opiate-of-the-masses stuff. Secular states had to get rid of that crap so that they could cleanse their societies of lesser thans, whether Russia's 30 million murdered or Vietnam or Cambodia's.

Religion was so... oppressive.

[Maggie_T]

He's going to retort he said "Christians," not Christianity, Doc. That's an easy one. Even for Sham.

[Neil Peart]

What Doc and Wyatt said. Also, MaxiPad Sham, you seem to discount the fact that Christianity was the basis for the scientific revolution AND classical liberalism (the REAL liberalism, not the Marxist perversion of the term).

[Maggie_T]

Now, now, Neil. You're going to get poor Sham all confused. It doesn't take much effort.

[MaximumSam]

Typical atheist road apples. I defy you, heathen, to demoinstrate via chapter and verse that Christ Jesus commanded "Christians" to commit such evil acts in His name. If you cannot do so, you will evince yet again that you are just another clueless, Godless bigot.

Why would I care what chapter and verse Jesus told poeple to do anything? The actual religion has nothing to do with my point, which is that people use religion to subvert reason and gain power through violence. It is an old, old, old, old story.

Although since you asked...

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Are you claiming that Jesus would disagree with this statement?

What Doc and Wyatt said. Also, MaxiPad Sham, you seem to discount the fact that Christianity was the basis for the scientific revolution AND classical liberalism (the REAL liberalism, not the Marxist perversion of the term).

Uh, untrue.

[Maggie_T]

True to form, Sham dropped a turd and left the building, leaving others to "clean-up" after him.

What else is new?

[MaximumSam]

True to form, Sham dropped a turd and left the building, leaving others to "clean-up" after him.

What else is new?

Huh?

[Maggie_T]

Ah, I knew that would get you scrambling back. :evilgrin:

You're so easy, Sham.

[DeclinetoState]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. Sorry, Ike, but what about those whose jobs were to manufacture the gun, or build the warship or rocket? And what about the numerous civilian benefits that have accrued from the improvements in gun technology, improvements in marine technology from the launch of new and better warships, and even from the ability of man to send objects into space, a result in part from the technology developed by launching missiles?

Ike would be RINO today.

[Maggie_T]

Quite.

I love it when liberals push the babblings of a "conservative" in order to "make a point."

Of course, you can't quite blame them. They judge by themselves. Never mind how many imbecilities HUSSEIN splutters during his campaign, liberals will nod in agreement with all of them.

Conservatives, OTOH, are the first to point out when another conservative talks nonsense.

Liberals cannot handle that.

[Pennville_Bill]

Just all the ones I've heard of. Christians have been killing people for a pretty long time. In fact, there was a name for history when Christianity ran Western civilization. We call it the Dark Ages.....

Aren't you trying to say that today's Christians are guilty of the sins of their forefathers reference The Inquisition? Doesn't that parallel Afro-American claims that today's white society is guilty of the sins of their forefathers reference slavery. If so, it's a weak arguement grounded in a faulty sense of reality.

[MaximumSam]

Aren't you trying to say that today's Christians are guilty of the sins of their forefathers reference The Inquisition? Doesn't that parallel Afro-American claims that today's white society is guilty of the sins of their forefathers reference slavery. If so, it's a weak arguement grounded in a faulty sense of reality.

It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with learning from the past. Religion plus government equals bad government. That's why we try to limit the amount of religion in the government. Other countries haven't quite learned the lesson.

[Maggie_T]

You're right, Sham. Religion and government don't mix. So here's what we'll do. From now on, we'll forbid government to tell us what to drive, how cold/warm to keep our homes, what light bulbs to use, etc. All in the interest of "separation of church and state."

After all, why should Al Gore's Religion of Global Warming be treated any different from Christianity? No, all religions must be treated equally.

[The_Sonarman]

“We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”

How about we exterminate those terrorist animals? "We" the US aren't beheading captives, or torturing captives with power tools. The terrorists are. We execute criminals who engage in such activities in the US, and rightly so.

There is no negotiating with them. The only solution is to kill them off and starve them of all funding sources. Once they are in small enough numbers, they will return to being a nuisance, such as they were pre 9/11.

Obama, get a better speech writer.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

MaximumSam:
It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with learning from the past. Religion plus government equals bad government. That's why we try to limit the amount of religion in the government. Other countries haven't quite learned the lesson.

:question: You mean like... Cuba??

[gnome]

Oh, come off it, gnome. Who said anything about you lying?

The fact that you don't want to see the obvious does not mean you're lying.

As someone once said, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. And the "fact" you stick to like coral to a reef is the myth about hunger invariably translating into the urge to go about killing people. That's the excuse you and people like Obama give in order to do nothing. I said it before, but it's worth repeating.

There's no blinder man than he who refuses to see.

Whenever you accuse me of wanting terrorists to win--or of making excuses for terrorists--despite that I've made it clear that there is no excuse and we must fight them--you are accusing me of lying.

I don't want to stop our military fighting terrorists. But I also believe there is more that we need to do besides kill them. You disagree-fine. But don't tell me I want to disarm us.

[BuckeyeMike]

Whenever you accuse me of wanting terrorists to win--or of making excuses for terrorists--despite that I've made it clear that there is no excuse and we must fight them--you are accusing me of lying.

I don't want to stop our military fighting terrorists. But I also believe there is more that we need to do besides kill them. You disagree-fine. But don't tell me I want to disarm us.

Would you please state specifically what more you think we need to do besides kill them?:question:

[DoctorDoom]

Why would I care what chapter and verse Jesus told poeple to do anything? The actual religion has nothing to do with my point, which is that people use religion to subvert reason and gain power through violence. It is an old, old, old, old story.As usual, you are evading the facts. I quote you, lawyer:

Just all the ones I've heard of. Christians have been killing people for a pretty long time. In fact, there was a name for history when Christianity ran Western civilization. We call it the Dark Ages.....What's that about "the actual religion (having) nothing to do with my point"?

IAC, atheist:

Main Entry: 1 Chris·tian (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christian)
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

When you stated, "Christians have been killing people for a pretty long time," you stated that those who "profess... belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ... have been killing people for a pretty long time." And when you spoke of Christianity being the cause of the "Dark Ages", you stated flatly that the doctrines and teachings of Christianity supported if not mandated those abominations.

I therefore requested that you produce "the teachings of Jesus Christ" that advocate the abominations of the Inquisitions and other utterly un-Christian horrors. You of course could not do so. Therefore, in your usual trollish manner, you tried to spin your way out of the trap you set for yourself. You're pathetic, lawyer.

Although since you asked...

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Are you claiming that Jesus would disagree with this statement?How unexpected that you singled out a verse condemning faggotry (liberalism's favorite perversion) rather than any of the other mosaic laws commanding execution as the penalty. That aside, why would Jesus disagree with it? He is after after all God, and God dictated the law.

Of course, being an atheist, you have zero familiarity with the Bible, the purpose of the OT law, and the New Covenant with God that releases from the penalties of the law the sinners who accept Christ Jesus' sacrifice as their atonement.

Yuu can't get out of it that easily, lawyer. You have stated flatly that the followers of Christ Jesus are murderers because of Jesus' teachings. You will now produce your evidence to support that calumny.

[Maggie_T]

Would you please state specifically what more you think we need to do besides kill them?:question:

Understand them.

And while we're pondering about how poverty gives Islamofascists the itch to blow us into eternity, Islamofascists will chop our head off, which is why I equate the whole "understanding" nonsense as disarming US.

But don't quote me. I'm just a trigger-happy conservative. :rolleyes:

[buckeyepete]

Would you please state specifically what more you think we need to do besides kill them?:question:


How utterly lacking in respect for the dead, most senior brother of mine! Of course there is more we should do for them.

Like give them a proper burial..................in a pig pen.

Like burn a copy of the koran, and send it to hell with them.

[DesertFox]

Behead their asses.

Heads, too.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
Understand them. :rolleyes:

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/Longhorn_Platinum/Islam911.jpg

[Maggie_T]

You're preaching to the choir, ducky. I was merely anticipating our resident liberals' "pearls of wisdom" on the matter of fighting the WoT.

[DoctorDoom]

We are supposed to surrender in the WoT. Didn't you get the memo?

[DoctorDoom]

Lest anyone forget ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Patriotic/WTCFlag600-1.jpg

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
You're preaching to the choir, ducky. I was merely anticipating our resident liberal's "pearls of wisdom" on the matter of fighting the WoT.

:moo: Yes, I know, dear, that's why I left the :rolleyes: in your quote.

:rolleyes: But please stop calling me "ducky". I can always tell when you're in a bad mood, because you start calling people "ducky".

[MaximumSam]

What's that about "the actual religion (having) nothing to do with my point"?

Are you denying that Christians didn't run European world for quite some time? If so, you need a history lesson. If not, then you have no point.

How unexpected that you singled out a verse condemning faggotry (liberalism's favorite perversion) rather than any of the other mosaic laws commanding execution as the penalty. That aside, why would Jesus disagree with it? He is after after all God, and God dictated the law.


Absolutely right. And if Jesus is God, and God said to kill homosexuals, and killing homosexuals is evil, then Jesus said for man to do evil things. And if man decided to use this passage to have homosexuals put to death, then perhaps he is using the Bible, and Christianity, to do evil things. Some Muslim countries do have homosexuals put to death.

[DesertFox]

Sam is again mistaking as Christians, some folks who called themselves Christians.

Sam, Christians behave in a certain way. It isn't hard to figure out who is a Christian and who just says he's a Christian, by following the way they act. The history books are chockful of people who said they were Christian, but were anything but Christian.

[DeclinetoState]

MaximumSam:
It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with learning from the past. Religion plus government equals bad government. That's why we try to limit the amount of religion in the government. Other countries haven't quite learned the lesson.
:question: You mean like... Cuba??
Bad example, Moo. Communism is a religion.

[DoctorDoom]

Are you denying that Christians didn't run European world for quite some time? If so, you need a history listen. If not, then you have no point.Your use of the double negative and the lack of "the" before European says a great deal about your "education". IAC, I hardly need a history "listen", whatever the hell that is, but I conclude that you slept through your English "listens".

Your linguistic ineptitude notwithstanding, atheist, anyone can claim to be what they are not. Hell, you claim to be an educated person.

The proof of the tree is in the fruit. When people carry out actions that are utterly against Biblical principles, they are NOT Christians, regardless of what banner they fly and what you clueless heathens have to say about them.

Absolutely right. And if Jesus is God, and God said to kill homosexuals, and killing homosexuals is evil, then Jesus said for man to do evil things.YOUR liberal definition of what is "evil" carries exactly zero weight in the real world.
Your argument lost any value here: "... and killing homosexuals is evil ..." Basing an argument on one's opinion renders the argument valueless.

When God defines an unnatural, self-destructive sexual behavior as an "abomination" ...

8441. tow'ebah, to-ay-baw'; or to'ebah, to-ay-baw'; fem. act. part. of H8581; prop. something disgusting (mor.), i.e. (as noun) (an abhorrence; espec. idolatry or (concr.) an idol:--abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

... and requires the DP for it, then the behavior, not the penalty, is evil. I realize that in your tiny liberal mind, the concept that sexual perversion is not a thing to be glorified is incomprehensible. That changes nothing in the real world. It was, is, and ever shall be evil, an abomination.

And if man decided to use this passage to have homosexuals put to death, then perhaps he is using the Bible, and Christianity, to do evil things.Again you place your judgment of what is evil above that of God. Perhaps you can take it up with Him when you kneel before Him at the White Throne.

IAC, before you dig your hole so deep that you hear Chinese music, do a little basic research on Christianity, the OT law, and the New Covenant. It might save you from etching in marble your status as a consummate fool.

Some Muslim countries do have homosexuals put to death.And which of them are "using the Bible, and Christianity" to justify it?

[Maggie_T]

:moo: Yes, I know, dear, that's why I left the :rolleyes: in your quote.

:rolleyes: But please stop calling me "ducky". I can always tell when you're in a bad mood, because you start calling people "ducky".

No, I'm not. I call people 'ducky' the same way I call them 'dear,' 'love,' and 'honey.'

I'm not mad at you, Moo ... should I be? :smirky:

[Maggie_T]

Your linguistic ineptitude notwithstanding, atheist, anyone can claim to be what they are not. Hell, you claim to be an educated person.



Ouch!

Better put some ice on that, Sham.

[MaximumSam]

YOUR liberal definition of what is "evil" carries exactly zero weight in the real world.
Your argument lost any value here: "... and killing homosexuals is evil ..." Basing an argument on one's opinion renders the argument valueless.


This is why reasonable people don't want people like you in positions of leadership, and if you were in a position of leadership, it's why we don't want you using the Bible to make decisions. You would put your faith blindly in a book that tells you to kill homosexuals, and defend your decision because the books tells you to do so. You don't even know who wrote the book, but you would freely admit to saying the book is error free and a mandate from God.

This type of behavior is irrational, and we don't need irrational decision making in government.

[DesertFox]

We have plenty of irrational govtal decision making without God.

[MaximumSam]

We have plenty of irrational govtal decision making without God.


Very true. However, there is at least opportunity for some sort of reasoned debate over what the government should and should not do. When you throw religion into the debate, the reason gets pushed right out the window. Iran is a theocracy, with religious clerics getting to supervise the entire government and decide who runs for office. And, as anyone can see in my small debate with Dr. Doom - reasoned debate gets limited to what God does and does not want. What makes sense/ is moral/ is right/ is constitutional/ is not relevant, and what God wants is. Once that becomes the parameter of the debate, then the opportunity for government to injure its people expands.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Getting back to the subject of educating the ignorant Kumbaya candidate, it behooves us to consider B. HUSSEIN Obama's total lack of qualifications to be our Commander-in-Chief.

The only experience he has mentioned was that he was a community organizer in Chicago's South Side. He never mentions that he was a community organizer for ACORN, a fascist organization that specializes in voter registration fraud.

[DoctorDoom]

This is why reasonable people don't want people like you in positions of leadership, and if you were in a position of leadership, it's why we don't want you using the Bible to make decisions.Liberal arseholes call homosexuality a wonderful thing and drop trou whenever a queer says, "I want..." But liberals condemn kindergarten Christmas plays as unconstitutional and ban them. And you think that the country needs YOUR harebrained concept of leadership. Spare us the bullshit, atheist.

You would put your faith blindly in a book that tells you to kill homosexuals, and defend your decision because the books tells you to do so.It does no good whatsoever to attempt a rational discourse with you, troll. You utterly ignore everything that doesn't fit your troll template.

Your ignorance is appalling.

For those who think that the heathen troll is having a spasm of lucidity, perish the thought. He is clueless.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

The same God that condemed homosexuality and called for death also condemned adultery. The fact that Sham focused on queers says far more about him than about the Bible. That aside, by his bizarre, mindless "logic", Jesus called for adulterers to be killed, and commanded His followers to do it. And yet ...

John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Despite Sham's nonsense, Jesus brought a whole new way of dealing with sin. He brought pardon and forgiveness rather than the penalty of the law. If Jesus forgave an adulterer, whom the law condemned to death, then Sham is flat-out wrong (so what's new?) to assert that Jesus condemns queers to death.

This type of behavior is irrational, and we don't need irrational decision making in government.We've seen decades of YOUR brand of irrational liberal "decision making in government". And the country is dying. THAT, fool, is what happens when we put your pathetic ilk into positions of power. Your detestable kind started your war against faith, morality and culture in the 60s, and the result has been a slow, relentless descent into hell. I state flatly that you are destroying America if not the world.

We were warned about your dangerous, deceitful kind 75 years ago.

"Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant. It is fashionable to be tolerant - but mostly tolerant of evil - and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good."
-- Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Miller), Occult Theocracy, 1933

[BuckeyeMike]

Getting back to the subject of educating the ignorant Kumbaya candidate, it behooves us to consider B. HUSSEIN Obama's total lack of qualifications to be our Commander-in-Chief.

The only experience he has mentioned was that he was a community organizer in Chicago's South Side. He never mentions that he was a community organizer for ACORN, a fascist organization that specializes in voter registration fraud.


"Community Organizer" isn't that just a feel-good term for "neighborhood thug"?

[DesertFox]

Neighborhood busybody and all-purpose pain-in-the-ass.

[BuckeyeMike]

I'll stick with "thug"

[Maggie_T]

You would put your faith blindly in a book that tells you to kill homosexuals, and defend your decision because the books tells you to do so. You don't even know who wrote the book, but you would freely admit to saying the book is error free and a mandate from God.

This type of behavior is irrational, and we don't need irrational decision making in government.


http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/doggie.gif


This self-righteous crap from a government-worshipping liberal?

Give us a break, Sham.

You liberals put your faith blindly in a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who tell you it's ok to kill innocent unborn babies, it's ok to steal a person't hard-earned money and give it to the lazy and unworthy, it's ok to confiscate a law-abiding citizen's guns, in spite of the Constitution's undeniable guarantee that said citizen CAN bear arms. You put your faith blindly in a conartist who tells you to ride bicycles and layer sweaters in order to "Save the environment" while he flies around in a private jet, and lives in a palatial house that consumes enough energy to keep a small town running. You put your faith blindly in all those frauds and defend their decision because they tell you to trust them, they know what's best for you. You don't even know what these people really are, but you would freely admit that they're wonderful people because they say they want to help the poor and clean the environment.

And YOU come here and preach to us what is and is not a "good decision?"

At least we believe in an almighty Being, whose existence may "not have been proved," but it has not been disproved, either.

YOU liberal cretins, OTOH, put all your faith in fallible human beings and believe that getting an official position somehow immdiately sanctifies them and makes them wholesome and worthy of trust.

This type of behavior is retarded, and we don't need retards to vote tyrants into power.


You really are a piece of work, Sham.

[DoctorDoom]

Babe, if you weren't married ...

[Maggie_T]

:lashes:

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
I'm not mad at you, Moo ... should I be? :smirky:

:moo: You should never be mad at me, 'cuz I'm always right.

[Maggie_T]

He says, modestly. ;)

[cerberus]

We don't want to see innocent men, women and children being blown to smithereens, and we're trying to create education systems that empower them to make better lives for themselves. Well, some people here don't want to see innocent men, women and children blown to smithereens, others don't appear to have a problem with the liberal use of nuclear weapons as a problem-solving mechanism.

But given that the Islamic world is pretty big, and that some Muslims (like the bin Laden family) are very well-to-do, and that their religion supposedly values activities to better the lives of the poor (part of the point behind fasting during Ramadan is to help Muslims who have remember what it's like for those who don't), why haven't the Muslims created societies for themselves where everyone (including females) is educated and has an opportunity to improve himself or herself?
That's a long sentence but I'll guess it's because like most "traditional" societies they value males more. You see that all over the "developing" world (reference the Chinese and Indian penchant for aborting females in recent years).
Why are so many Islamic countries, if not in the 9th or 10th centuries socially, politically, and economically, nevertheless several centuries behind the European and North American countries? They've been around longer, and many of these impoverished Islamic countries are rich in natural resources (and not just oil, either).
Well that's a good question to which there are i'm sure a myriad of answers. One could as the same thing of African nations, Asian nations, South American nations or any "developing" nation. The answers tend to vary with the country. With respect to the petro-states of the gulf you see, as you do in many states with valuable natural resources 'Dutch Disease' as well as corruption from political leader and a dis-incentive to modernize both economically and politically. That's not a function of their "Islamic-ness" so much as generic greed/corruption/poor governance.

[cerberus]

It can just as easily - and accurately - be said that it's just that the majority of liberals don't want to listen to what conservatives have to say as it interferes with their black-and-white outlook on the GWOT and the "poverty justifies terrorism/we should appease terrotists {bold added for irony}, not fight them" mentality that permeates (please notice the correct spelling of the word) leftism." I have never said poverty justifies terrorism or that we should appease terrorists (please notice the correct spelling of the word). I have noticed that your lack of analytical depth and use of strawmen has left you not actually addressing any of the points actually made. If you would like to do so MaggiT, i'll patiently address your concerns and disagreements should you choose to bring them up. That is if you can find it get past the occasional misspelled word...I can if you can...:biggrin:

[cerberus]

Sorry, Ike, but what about those whose jobs were to manufacture the gun, or build the warship or rocket? And what about the numerous civilian benefits that have accrued from the improvements in gun technology, improvements in marine technology from the launch of new and better warships, and even from the ability of man to send objects into space, a result in part from the technology developed by launching missiles? You are arguing for public military spending as a form of goverment jobs program? That's just government welfare repackaged. Simply because some military technologies have spin-off applications doesn't make them in-and-of themselves worthwhile. You want better marine technology? Get the private sector to do it. Military spending should have only one function and that is to provide, as efficiently and economically as possible, the weapons and equipment needed for the nation's defense and NOT for the self-perpetuation of defense contractors.

Ike would be RINO today. Ike would be a budget-hawk conservative today just as he was then.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, some people here don't want to see innocent men, women and children blown to smithereens ...And some people here don't have a microclue about the nature of the enemy in Iraq and the WoT. They deliberately locate themselves in the heart of civilian populations of "innocent men, women and children" (in blatant violation of the GC) in order to dissuade the weak-kneed, candy-assed western pussies from attacking.

... others don't appear to have a problem with the liberal use of nuclear weapons as a problem-solving mechanism.It bloody well solved the problem in Japan, liberal.

[Lazarus]

This is why reasonable people don't want people like you in positions of leadership, and if you were in a position of leadership, it's why we don't want you using the Bible to make decisions. You would put your faith blindly in a book that tells you to kill homosexuals, and defend your decision because the books tells you to do so. You don't even know who wrote the book, but you would freely admit to saying the book is error free and a mandate from God.

This type of behavior is irrational, and we don't need irrational decision making in government.Sam, you really should stay away from any subject involving the scriptures as you apparently are embarrassingly ignorant of them...

The Bible does not tell us to "Kill Homosexuals" today... At one time it was the mandate of God to do so as part of the Moseic law - the national law of the nation of Israel... I might also add that it mandated death for adulterers, fornicators, incest, and all manner of other sexual deviations... That was the MOSEIC Law and was in effect for the dispensation of Israel...

We however now live under the dispensation of the Church and the Moseic law is superceded by the Protocol Plan of God as demonstrated and established by Christ... Although we live in the age of grace today, this is not to imply that homosexuality or any of the other sexual sins condemned in the Moseic law are now "decriminalized" and free to be indulged in with impunity... The government is not to legitimize sexual deviency by recognizing such behavior as officially sanctioned and approved lifestyle choices, but God no longer requires the government to apply the death penalty...

However if any government or society does in fact begin to recognize these sexual devient behaviors as legitimate or mainstream, God will in fact still apply the cycles of discpline to that naiton until they either reverse their position or they are destroyed and dispersed... This policy falls under the Sovereingty of God, and his demonstration with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah still represents his attitude toward such deviations and their sanctioned toleration in any society - THAT particular mandate is still in effect - What was sin then, is still sin today...

Of course all this is predicated on the belief that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God - If you don't believe this is true, then of course your personal philosophy could be guided by any number of standards, none of which have any more authority than one's personal opinion... As such, your world has no norms, no standards, because there is no common controlling document, and thus if one's personal nature runs toward legalism, one creates a god of the government...

[Lazarus]

Well, some people here don't want to see innocent men, women and children blown to smithereens, others don't appear to have a problem with the liberal use of nuclear weapons as a problem-solving mechanism....When your nation goes to war against another nation, you aren't warring against only those individuals who are in the government bureaucracy, or against those in military uniforms - which leftists seem to consider to be less than human and somehow more worthy of indiscriminate expenditure... Nations go to war against nations, and that means all the population of that nation - all its citizens...

In war the concept of "guilt or innocence" is irrelevant as a human consideration - All citizens of a nation are the collective substance of that nation and thus share in the conflict... The higher question of individual guilt or innocence is the providence of God... The nations involved are only concerned with victory or defeat...

In that respect, any weapon that brings about the conclusion of war with swift efficiency is a legitimate choice... When this nation goes to war, I would hope we have the moral courage to use the most powerful, most efficient weapons we possess to achieve victory with the least possible loss of life among our own people...

[DeclinetoState]

... others don't appear to have a problem with the liberal use of nuclear weapons as a problem-solving mechanism.

It bloody well solved the problem in Japan, liberal.

Also remember that Harry S Truman (who ordered the bombs dropped) was no conservative.

[Maggie_T]

I have never said poverty justifies terrorism or that we should appease terrorists (please notice the correct spelling of the word).

My spelling errors are a result of typos. Yours are a result of American Public Education.

:neener:

I have noticed that your lack of analytical depth and use of strawmen has left you not actually addressing any of the points actually made.

Your points? You liberals never make any points. All you do is emote. The best you can do is repeat the liberal mantras over and over again. And what passes for "analytical depth" in your case is mere bloviation and hot air. You wouldn't know a point (good or bad) if I impaled you on one.

If you would like to do so MaggiT, i'll patiently address your concerns and disagreements should you choose to bring them up.

I express my disagreement in every one of my posts. And my only concern is that this county will never be rid of liberals, not before it's too late.

Make of that what you will. I can pretty much guess what that will be.

That is if you can find it get past the occasional misspelled word...

See above. Your spelling errors (not to mention your "creative grammar") are the only serious thing about your posts.

[gnome]

Would you please state specifically what more you think we need to do besides kill them?:question:

Hey guys, I know this is so three pages ago, but I was on a weird schedule for a week, and I thought this question deserved an answer.

I can accept the premise that the bulk of terrorists will be immune to reason, and remain hostile to America and American interests with furious ignorance. I do not accept that a similar furious ignorance is our best response.

We have a strong military and we indeed need to use it to defend ourselves. What more, you asked? Other portions of the solution have been spoken of as if they come at the exclusion of our armed defense. This is a false dichotomy. While mounting our defense with steadfast resolve, additional measures are not only useful but necessary.

If I may borrow from some Sun Tzu--perhaps someone can find the most accurate quote, but it is something along the lines of "Attacking the enemy´s plans is best; next is to attack his alliances; next to attack his army."

- We need knowledge of our enemy to attack their plans. We obviously know they want to kill us, but I guarantee their plans are more significant than "get 'em!". We study the enemy's desires in order to anticipate their plans and responses--NOT to give in to them. We study them to make infiltration possible, too.

- We need to engage in skillful diplomacy with the nations where terrorists hide, and separate the terrorists from those who would give them shelter. This will take a combination of tactful or aggressive negotiation according to the situation. This is again something that cannot be done without the kind of knowledge and diplomatic talent that is repeatedly scoffed at in this forum. There may be some completely intractable nations that will eventually require us to use force, but every one that we can convince, via incentive, accord, or implied threat, is a priceless savings in lives and resources.

- The terrorists are not all of one political bloc and with knowledge we can potentially drive wedges between them.

[DoctorDoom]

- We need knowledge of our enemy to attack their plans. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Terrorism/Islam2.jpg

[gnome]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Terrorism/Islam2.jpg


Hand that to our military intelligence and see how useful it is.