anti-american sentimen, and whats wrong with our country Options

[sikdragon]

I am an American and i am proud. Now why the hell is anti-american sentiment news? we have been hated long before Iraq. We are hated because we allies with Isreal. Call me an old fashioned right winged cowboy, i dont care. but think what side would you rather be on the right or the wrong? thats what i thought. Don't you see how pussified this country has become?

faggots are fighting for their right to marry, what kind of **** is that? there was a time when these people were taken in the back and shot, its not a disease it is a choice. and since when do we care what other countries thought of what we do? the leaders of those countries are all using the same concept, make money.

Now i can see why poor people support liberalism/communism, yeah it'll cut out the middle class and make everyone around them poor, wait thats not a good thing. In this country the way it is there is room for advancement. Everyone one of you are being turned into robots, controlled by the tv. The tv is controlled by the liberal media which will spare nothing to keep you on it's side. You never hear about the good things that happen because of Bush because you have a news source that hates him with a passion, why because he has conservative values. What are those? u might ask, well those are those tiny things your parents vaguely remember before they began to stop listening to their parents. and we wonder why there is so much violence and murder and drunk driving in this country.

It's because the men aren't being men anymore. Running from their problems instead of fighting. Now kids are learning that if they join gangs they become men. WHAT KIND OF **** IS THAT? some guy picks on you, doesnt matter if he is smaller than you, you gotta have him jumped instead of being a man and getting your ass kicked. Taking it on the chin hurts too much, i gotta get my gun.

Feminism was one of the worst things that has happened to this country. Now im not saying women shouldnt have rights, im saying that by killing the home maker and giving her a choice you leave the child to be raised by the television or some day care center. that doesnt sound bad does it? well what happens when your child doesnt listen to you anymore, the child feels neglected, the child resorts to drugs to kill their problems, or drinks to drown their problems instead of facing them.

The new movie with the blonde whore from 8mile is such bullshit. yeah instead of confronting my boyfriend lets go behind his back and be "clever" teehee. < what was she scared she might break up with him because of a question? sounds like a great relationship doesnt it. trust, love, and faith arent things that define marriage, those things are only in the movies. those things arent virtues they are bullshit. oh wait is that why the divorce rate has gone up so much???

Clinton was the third worst president we have ever had, wait he did great with the economy? Hell no, he jacked up the taxes and used multi-billion dollar bombs on some walmart tents. That is some strategy isnt it? He sold military secrets to the chinese and now they have rockets? WOW, i am soo surprised.

Ok JFK was elected by the teamsters and assassinated when his brother started using government power to slaughter many important families. But before he died he decided to do some serious damage. This democrat got us into the vietnam war. Then his dumb ass VP kept us there slaughtering our troops. Bush is the warmonger? i dont think so. Instead of going in there full force he chose not to shock and awe. He sent inexpierienced troops into asia, and the most commonly known fact before you idiots starting drinking your polluted water, was never get in a land war in asia. Then when Nixon got in there and made him look like a fool, by asking congress to let him bomb the hell outta that country, they said no so he did the logical thing. Pull out our troops. This was only because we werent making enough body bags for the bodies.

Right now we're winning, Saddam has been captured, Iraqi gangs are killing off the old regime. It is not the same thing, there is no comparison between the iraq war and the vietnam war.

Does your hero support Kerry? does he/she also support NAMBLA? cuz they are on the same team. maybe your hero isnt as smart as you thought, try thinking for yourself.

If you are offended by any or all of these statements i got some words for you, quit being a hoe. DEAL WITH IT, I AM RIGHT.

MODS I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CUSSING, IT HELPS TO EXPRESS MY FEELINGS AND HOW MESSED UP IT REALLY IS. DONT DELETE THIS JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE THIS IS THE DEBATE SECTION.

Quote of my life:"Stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone."

[sikdragon]

i am not closed minded but i have yet to hear an arguement that has swayed my opinion

[Spirited Away]

I would have voted better if you had included "Yes, I support America but I do not always agree with its government"... or something like that.

[sikdragon]

its not all about the poll read what i wrote

[Spirited Away]

its not all about the poll read what i wrote

I did read, but the poll was what drew my attention.

I agree somewhat with your points, but I have to disagree with your views on feminism, marriage, and few other minor points.

I'm a centrist so I usually agree to things from either side of the political spectrum, so even though you make sense in somethings, I don't agree with them.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that there are many females who act as the head of the household. How do you suppose a child be raised with one working Mother? If you can suggest a valid idea, I'm sure many single Mothers would appreciate it.

As for your example of 8 Miles, I've never seen it... However, marriage IS trust, love, and faith and isn't only in movies. They are what characterize a good marriage and it's up to the people in the relationship to exert them to their full potentials. So, if it happens that a marriage is screwed up, it's probably because the couple is screwed over by their own selfishness... etc.

[sikdragon]

men being men would be a good example, waiting until marriage until having children. if so many dad's didnt leave then there wouldnt be so much crap going on.

ur right about marriage im saying that for the benefit of the reader sort of as reverse psychology.

my views on feminism are proven everyday, just look at the world around you. If you dont see it, you are to rich to argue with me about anything.

u should watch 8 mile it is inspiring.

but that is your opinion and i respect that.

[highly_evolved]

im american and embarrased. i mean who WOULDNT attack a country that we THOUGHT had weapons of mass destruction. i mean isnt that the logical thing to do? of course id love to support the giant business oweners like mr.trump. hey maybe we can get another casino! yay! i think that would help our education system dont you?

[sikdragon]

im sensing some sarcasm, but anyone but bush, because bush was the only conservative to run for president. but i think that whole statement was brought upon by not liberal but satanist propaganda.

[Spirited Away]

you are to rich to argue with me about anything.

u should watch 8 mile it is inspiring.

Trust me when I say that I'm not anywhere near rich and the situation was 10 times worst when I was younger.

Anywho, I think arguing for women who act as head of the households is quite appropriate. How many single mothers do you know that are rich, or can afford to stay at home with their kids? There isn't really an alternative. In fact, because women generally bring in less income then men, they need all the benefits they can get their hands on... etc.

I will rent 8 Mile.

[sikdragon]

ur right but if men would be men and not leave them in that situation that would not be such a big problem, thus the basis of my ramblings. and if ur gonna quote me dont do it out of context because that looks like u only use things that benefit your views not the truth. not saying that ur not truthful just a FYI.

[Spirited Away]

and if ur gonna quote me dont do it out of context because that looks like u only use things that benefit your views not the truth. not saying that ur not truthful just a FYI.

Oh, okay, I'll quit. But I thought that the assumption was out of context... and isn't debating about who's view seem more valid?

I didn't know there were truths in politics.

[highly_evolved]

i saw 8 mile. i think it is a very good view on our world today. there is a 10 minute sex scene were it dsnt seem at all like he is using protection (watch it and u will know wat i mean). the basic story is about a young poor kid who wants to use his lyrical talent to succeded in the harsh world he lives in. o ya and hes white.

the sex scene - shows how america at the moment is jumping into situations but does not have all the facts to support its decision

the basic story - this is how the all the republicans are trying to survive in this cruel harsh world. and the white kid? wel.. that can be kerry!

brilliant interepritatoin dont you think.

[sadolakced acid]

conservative to run for president. but i think that whole statement was brought upon by not liberal but satanist propaganda.

what's wrong with satanist propaganda?


here's a look at our country that's not through a movie.

the KKK wanted to put propoganda at a local college. a local black college. the college stopped them. the klan sued.

now there are racist flyers all over a black college.

do you want to know why america is messed up?

because we are a democracy. and we are fundamentally flawed.

democracy is the hope that stupid people in large groups won't make mistakes.
yes i just called myself and all americans stupid.

the collective stupiditiy in this country is the highest in the world. it is more powerful than an atom bomb.

for example- here is a simple question, that you should know the answer to without looking it up.

how many sections are there in the consitution and what do they govern?

[sikdragon]

the constitution was written as guidelines for our government. and that has nothing to do with what i wrote. try reading it before you start talking about my saying satinist propaganda. Satanist propaganda is the complete opposite of the truth. It is words twisted and bended to make beelzebub look good. and apparently you have fallen under it's spell like a mind slave with no will of your own.

[highly_evolved]

^ lol ur smart i like how u think

[sikdragon]

thank-you, while i disagree about what you say, i would call you my brother.

[highly_evolved]

and same to you, someone who respects someone eles oppinion. i respect that

[sikdragon]

i wouldnt mind if u changed urs, bush needs all the votes he can get. j/k

[highly_evolved]

haha well i dont think he needs a majority of the votes. well not accordoing to the 2000 elections

[sikdragon]

oh dont you even try it, gore tried to rig the elections and still lost. that was the same year the liberals running for governor used dead people to vote for them.

[highly_evolved]

hah! i saw a movie were that happened! cant remember the title though. but the conservatives used dead ppl to vote. but that list of ppl who had been convicted of a felon 95% were innocent, and 53% were african american. interesting...

[sikdragon]

must have been a c movie, but it happened in tommy boy and the liberal governors thought no one would remember.

[sporadic]

I like america, there are some damn good things about it. I just don't like the government.

That doesn't make sense, because without the government America would be nothing... But still.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]I am an American and i am proud. Now why the hell is anti-american sentiment news? we have been hated long before Iraq. We are hated because we allies with Isreal. Call me an old fashioned right winged cowboy, i dont care. but think what side would you rather be on the right or the wrong? thats what i thought. Don't you see how pussified this country has become?[/quote]

Let's see:
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East known to have nuclear weapons against International Law (the same law, by the way, that we invoked to invade Iraq)
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East that has openly advocated deportations
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East that uses concentration camps (except for Iraq, but we got rid of them now)
- In the Six Day War, Israel attacked an American Cruiser ... after invading Egypt and Syria pre-emptively.
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East to have launched a pre-emptive airstrike against another country without declaring war.

It seems to me that if you want to side with teh right side, you should side with teh Arabs ... Of course, it isn't our fight, so we shouldn't side with anyone.

[quote]faggots are fighting for their right to marry, what kind of **** is that? there was a time when these people were taken in the back and shot, its not a disease it is a choice. and since when do we care what other countries thought of what we do? the leaders of those countries are all using the same concept, make money.[/quote]

When were gay people shot? Burning at the stake was much more common. In fact, the term faggot comes from a slang for the wood used to burn itself.

[quote]Now i can see why poor people support liberalism/communism, yeah it'll cut out the middle class and make everyone around them poor, wait thats not a good thing.[/quote]

Incorrect. According to Exit Polls, the most liberal section of the population is the richest 5% -- the rich benefit most from liberalism and socialism, precisely because it destroys the middle class and lets them stay rich forever.

[quote]In this country the way it is there is room for advancement.  Everyone one of you are being turned into robots, controlled by the tv. The tv is controlled by the liberal media which will spare nothing to keep you on it's side. You never hear about the good things that happen because of Bush because you have a news source that hates him with a passion, why because he has conservative values.[/quote]

The media is VERY Bush-friendly. It is liberal, definitely, but the media was far more critical of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton, than Bush Jr. Why? Because Bush doesn't act like a conservative. He has raised social spending more than any other president in history. He has also acted along a foreign policy more akin to Johnsonian expansionism than Eisenhower's conservative realism. For more information: www.amconmag.org.

[quote]What are those? u might ask, well those are those tiny things your parents vaguely remember before they began to stop listening to their parents. and we wonder why there is so much violence and murder and drunk driving in this country.[/quote]

Violence and murder have two main causes: Illegitimate Birth and the War on Drugs. Illegitimate Birth can be solved by getting women to stop marrying the government -- i.e. abolishing welfare. The War on Drugs can be solved by ending it. Drugs were legal until the late 1960s. After we abolished most drugs in the late 60s, the murder rate has tripled, and drug usage has increased.

When we abolished alcohol in 1919, the alcohol abuse rate went UP and the murder rate almost tripled. After we legalized it in 1933, the murder rate went down by 60% and the alcohol abuse rate declined by 10%.

[quote]It's because the men aren't being men anymore. Running from their problems instead of fighting. Now kids are learning that if they join gangs they become men. WHAT KIND OF **** IS THAT? some guy picks on you, doesnt matter if he is smaller than you, you gotta have him jumped instead of being a man and getting your ass kicked. Taking it on the chin hurts too much, i gotta get my gun.[/quote]

Joining gangs is a direct cause of the War on Drugs -- something conservatives have been pushing (and also Clinton, who spent over four times more money on the War on Drugs than Reagan and Bush Sr combined). Were there drug gangs in the 50s? No. They only appeared after we abolished drugs, preventing legitimate businessmen from selling them and turning it into a criminal enterprise. We don't see gangs bootlicking alochol and cigarettes, do we?

[quote]Feminism was one of the worst things that has happened to this country. Now im not saying women shouldnt have rights, im saying that by killing the home maker and giving her a choice you leave the child to be raised by the television or some day care center. that doesnt sound bad does it? well what happens when your child doesnt listen to you anymore, the child feels neglected, the child resorts to drugs to kill their problems, or drinks to drown their problems instead of facing them.[/quote]

Also not true. Having two working parents actually results in the children being raised better -- because the children are taught responsibiltiy when they see their parents go work (sometimes drudgingly).

[quote]Clinton was the third worst president we have ever had, wait he did great with the economy? Hell no, he jacked up the taxes and used multi-billion dollar bombs on some walmart tents. That is some strategy isnt it? He sold military secrets to the chinese and now they have rockets? WOW, i am soo surprised. [/quote]

Um... the Chinese have had rockets since the 50s ... they had access to most of the Soviets' technology. Clinton is not the third worst president we've had -- he's definitely down there, but I can think of three presidents off the top of my head who were worse than him: LBJ, FDR, and Harding.

[quote]Ok JFK was elected by the teamsters and assassinated when his brother started using government power to slaughter many important families. But before he died he decided to do some serious damage. This democrat got us into the vietnam war. Then his dumb ass VP kept us there slaughtering our troops. Bush is the warmonger? i dont think so. Instead of going in there full force he chose not to shock and awe. He sent inexpierienced troops into asia, and the most commonly known fact before you idiots starting drinking your polluted water, was never get in a land war in asia.[/quote]

We are in a land war in Asia right now...

[quote]Then when Nixon got in there and made him look like a fool, by asking congress to let him bomb the hell outta that country, they said no so he did the logical thing. Pull out our troops. This was only because we werent making enough body bags for the bodies.

Right now we're winning, Saddam has been captured, Iraqi gangs are killing off the old regime. It is not the same thing, there is no comparison between the iraq war and the vietnam war.[/quote]

OF course there isn't. A much better comparison for the Iraq War would be our "Splendid Little War" with Spain in 1898. We crushed the Spanish, with very few American casualties, and we acquired Cuba and the Philippines. Later, we fought a very bloody gurellia war over the Philippines, resulting in 8,000 American deaths and over 600,000 Filipino.

Carl Rove, Bush's campaign advsior, actually said that Bush's term would be modeled after McKinley's -- who got us into the Spanish-American War.

[quote]men being men would be a good example, waiting until marriage until having children. if so many dad's didnt leave then there wouldnt be so much crap going on.[/quote]

Welfare - The government pays women to have children out-of-wedlock. This obviously encourages irresponsible birth, since they know they won't get in trouble. Except for the War on Drugs, welfare is the single worst thing to happen to the poor of America.

[sikdragon]

ur right welfare should be cut, it has been cut dramtically in wisonconsin by the governor who now is one of bush's top advisors.
[quote]
Um... the Chinese have had rockets since the 50s ... they had access to most of the Soviets' technology. Clinton is not the third worst president we've had -- he's definitely down there, but I can think of three presidents off the top of my head who were worse than him: LBJ, FDR, and Harding.[/quote]
i meant intercontinental ballistic missile technology

[quote]Welfare - The government pays women to have children out-of-wedlock. This obviously encourages irresponsible birth, since they know they won't get in trouble. Except for the War on Drugs, welfare is the single worst thing to happen to the poor of America. [/quote]
welfare is another reason, but they wouldnt need it if the father's would stay and be fathers.

[quote]OF course there isn't. A much better comparison for the Iraq War would be our "Splendid Little War" with Spain in 1898. We crushed the Spanish, with very few American casualties, and we acquired Cuba and the Philippines. Later, we fought a very bloody gurellia war over the Philippines, resulting in 8,000 American deaths and over 600,000 Filipino.

Carl Rove, Bush's campaign advsior, actually said that Bush's term would be modeled after McKinley's -- who got us into the Spanish-American War.[/quote]

what was wrong with the spanish-american war?

[quote]Let's see:
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East known to have nuclear weapons against International Law (the same law, by the way, that we invoked to invade Iraq)
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East that has openly advocated deportations
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East that uses concentration camps (except for Iraq, but we got rid of them now)
- In the Six Day War, Israel attacked an American Cruiser ... after invading Egypt and Syria pre-emptively.
- Israel is the only government in the Mid East to have launched a pre-emptive airstrike against another country without declaring war.

It seems to me that if you want to side with teh right side, you should side with teh Arabs ... Of course, it isn't our fight, so we shouldn't side with anyone.[/quote]
Israel is a country comprised of the single most persecuted group in history.
Israel is a jewish country.
Jews are God's chosen people..
It is our fight, because when we no longer support Israel it will mark a new day when the world as whole is fully against israel. There will be an attack from every country in great proportions at israel, Israel will win.
Israel is the strongest country in the world.

It would be wise to be on their side.

[quote]We are in a land war in Asia right now...[/quote]
yeah and we used aerial attacks slaughtering their leader and his sons. America doesnt have a pussy in office like we did during vietnam so that saying doesnt apply to him. not to mention in vietnam we were in know real immediate threat. in Iraq there was a threat.

[quote]Also not true. Having two working parents actually results in the children being raised better -- because the children are taught responsibiltiy when they see their parents go work (sometimes drudgingly).[/quote]
no they dont they learn distrust rebellion and hatred. in the fifties there were almost no teen suicides or teen violence like there is now. Not to mention there are other more effective ways to teach responsibility.


[quote]Joining gangs is a direct cause of the War on Drugs -- something conservatives have been pushing (and also Clinton, who spent over four times more money on the War on Drugs than Reagan and Bush Sr combined). Were there drug gangs in the 50s? No. They only appeared after we abolished drugs, preventing legitimate businessmen from selling them and turning it into a criminal enterprise. We don't see gangs bootlicking alochol and cigarettes, do we?[/quote]
yes we do. and yes drugs should be legal, but im saying that street gangs are what the kids join to prove their man hood. they get jumped in and now they get picked on by some guy and ends up having his friends beat the hell outta him, whatever happened to a fair fight?

[quote]Violence and murder have two main causes: Illegitimate Birth and the War on Drugs. Illegitimate Birth can be solved by getting women to stop marrying the government -- i.e. abolishing welfare. The War on Drugs can be solved by ending it. Drugs were legal until the late 1960s. After we abolished most drugs in the late 60s, the murder rate has tripled, and drug usage has increased.

When we abolished alcohol in 1919, the alcohol abuse rate went UP and the murder rate almost tripled. After we legalized it in 1933, the murder rate went down by 60% and the alcohol abuse rate declined by 10%.[/quote]

that has nothing to do with the quote.

[quote]The media is VERY Bush-friendly. It is liberal, definitely, but the media was far more critical of Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton, than Bush Jr. Why? Because Bush doesn't act like a conservative. He has raised social spending more than any other president in history. He has also acted along a foreign policy more akin to Johnsonian expansionism than Eisenhower's conservative realism. For more information: www.amconmag.org. [/quote]
buddy that isnt a website. and the media is no where near bush friendly. there are so many celebrities right now getting the spotlight to share their negative opinions of bush. u never hear oh bush did a great job. there are cd's coming out called rock against bush, the funny thing is they arent rock bands. the majority of black people are poor, they support liberalism because they dont know any better, and when one of them gets famous by rapping or whatever then they speak about how they hate bush. major newspapers like the newyork times rarely ever show good things that bush has done. on tv you hear about how badly bush has done with the economy.

[quote]Incorrect. According to Exit Polls, the most liberal section of the population is the richest 5% -- the rich benefit most from liberalism and socialism, precisely because it destroys the middle class and lets them stay rich forever.[/quote]
the most liberal is the riches 5 %, what about the richest 5%'supporters who dont believe that is what will happen? why do u think communism is so marketable to poor people? and it is very marketable to poor people.

[quote]When were gay people shot? Burning at the stake was much more common. In fact, the term faggot comes from a slang for the wood used to burn itself.[/quote]
it wasnt literal, i meant it wasnt only not acceptable, it was abhorred.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]i meant intercontinental ballistic missile technology[/quote]

The Soviets invented ICBMs first. During the Cold War, we used bombers that circled around the Artic Circle ready to attack Russia. The Russians didn't have as many bombers in their air force, so they decided to build ICBMs instead. The Chinese have had them since the 60s when the Soviets made them.

[quote]what was wrong with the spanish-american war?[/quote]

The War itself wasn't bad, but the "peace" following the war was -- A very bloody uprising in the Philippines lasting several years and leading to almost a million deaths, including thousands of American soldiers.

[quote]Israel is a country comprised of the single most persecuted group in history[/quote]

Most Israelis were never actually persecuted. If African-Americans in the US started killing white people, we wouldn't excsue it because they were persecuted.

[quote]Israel is a jewish country.
Jews are God's chosen people..[/quote]

How racist. Can you PROVE that. The arabs say they are God's chosen people to.

[quote]It is our fight, because when we no longer support Israel it will mark a new day when the world as whole is fully against israel. There will be an attack from every country in great proportions at israel, Israel will win.
Israel is the strongest country in the world.[/quote]

Lol... No. Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt during the Six Days War. They pushed Egypt across the Siani (after crippling an AMERICAN cruiser). But then the Egyptians were turning the tide and seemed to be winning ... the only thing that saved Israel from utter destruction then was British and French armed reinforcements. Besides, if Israel can win against any attack, why do WE have to support them? If they are the strongest country in the world, then obviously they don't need our help. It's not our fight.

[quote]It would be wise to be on their side.[/quote]

What has Israel done for us??

"They say Israel is our only friend in the Mid East. But whenever they say that, I can't help but think before Israel we didn't have any enemies."
--Source Unknown

Israel has been a liability not an asset. The Arabs hate us because we support Israel ... our support of Israel costs us tens of billions of dollars a year in direct costs, plus tens of billions more in higher oil prices, plus the lives of thousands of American soldiers and citizens sent to occupy the Mid East and die in terrorism.

[quote]yeah and we used aerial attacks slaughtering their leader and his sons. America doesnt have a pussy in office like we did during vietnam so that saying doesnt apply to him. not to mention in vietnam we were in know real immediate threat. in Iraq there was a threat.[/quote]

What threat? There is no proof that Saddam posed a threat to us. Remember that during the Vietnam War, we thought that there was an imminent threat as well -- the one that communism would spread to SE Asia and Australia.

[quote]no they dont they learn distrust rebellion and hatred. in the fifties there were almost no teen suicides or teen violence like there is now. Not to mention there are other more effective ways to teach responsibility.[/quote]

What is there to rebel against if your parents aren't there?

[quote]yes we do. and yes drugs should be legal, but im saying that street gangs are what the kids join to prove their man hood. they get jumped in and now they get picked on by some guy and ends up having his friends beat the hell outta him, whatever happened to a fair fight?[/quote]

Like in Iraq, where we won't come within a mile of enemy troops?

[quote]that has nothing to do with the quote.


buddy that isnt a website. and the media is no where near bush friendly. there are so many celebrities right now getting the spotlight to share their negative opinions of bush. u never hear oh bush did a great job. there are cd's coming out called rock against bush, the funny thing is they arent rock bands.[/quote]

Celebrities aren't, but ever since 9-11 the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Even liberal outlets like CNN issued more articles in support of the war than against.

[quote]the majority of black people are poor, they support liberalism because they dont know any better, and when one of them gets famous by rapping or whatever then they speak about how they hate bush. major newspapers like the newyork times rarely ever show good things that bush has done. on tv you hear about how badly bush has done with the economy. [/quote]

No, the majority of black people support liberalism because of things like affirmative action and civil rights. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most liberal blacks, and they are both filthy rich.

[quote]the most liberal is the riches 5 %, what about the richest 5%'supporters who dont believe that is what will happen? why do u think communism is so marketable to poor people? and it is very marketable to poor people.[/quote]

Not communism, socialism ... There's a significant difference.

I also hate when people misuse the term Liberalism. Liberalism is actually an 18th century philosophy that is closest to Libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is actually socialism.

[sikdragon]

What is there to rebel against if your parents aren't there?

babysitters, bus drivers,teachers, cops, wardens, gaurds. take your pick.
when parents get back home after working all day and expect their kids to just do their chores and they arent done. I mean if there wasnt anything to rebel against where do we get teenage angst lyrics in today's songs? mostly from a kid who's father wasnt there for him growing up and when he finally is, the man is overbearing and condescending.<-- there is where the rebellion comes in, there is where the teenage runaway stats come from.

The Soviets invented ICBMs first. During the Cold War, we used bombers that circled around the Artic Circle ready to attack Russia. The Russians didn't have as many bombers in their air force, so they decided to build ICBMs instead. The Chinese have had them since the 60s when the Soviets made them.

ok so that isnt what he sold this was what happened.

"In 1994 President Clinton began personally authorizing the export of advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology directly to communist China. The exports took place with presidential waivers that included the signature of Bill Clinton. They also took place using loopholes and bureaucratic gray areas of U.S. export law.

The Clinton exports included such military items as advanced fiber optic communications; radiation hardened encrypted satellite control systems, encrypted radios and cellular phones, and encrypted navigation systems. According to the GAO, President Clinton even approved the sale of a fully operational, secure air traffic control system for the Chinese Air Force. "

-the little book 3 by Harold Thomas

Most Israelis were never actually persecuted. If African-Americans in the US started killing white people, we wouldn't excsue it because they were persecuted.

nearly daily terrorist attacks isnt persecution?

How racist. Can you PROVE that. The arabs say they are God's chosen people to.

well if you wanna get philisophical, can you PROVE anything? no you cant, proof comes as a bi-product of perception.
The koran the bible of the muslims(the mainstream religion of all of the middle east and the fastest growing religion.) contradicts itself several times when refering to the jews. In the beginning Mohammed wrote of the jews as a good people while the muslim nation was in talks of buying land, but when they refused, the jews are called a dispicable people.

The Torah which does not contradict itself in any way refers to the Jews as God's chosen people.

These documents are the only way to know who God has chosen until his son's second return. so u can ask him when he gets here.

Lol... No. Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt during the Six Days War. They pushed Egypt across the Siani (after crippling an AMERICAN cruiser). But then the Egyptians were turning the tide and seemed to be winning ... the only thing that saved Israel from utter destruction then was British and French armed reinforcements. Besides, if Israel can win against any attack, why do WE have to support them? If they are the strongest country in the world, then obviously they don't need our help. It's not our fight.

lol preemptive strike?? While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. Israel is constantly under attack so how could anything be a preemptive strike?
"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."
-Nasser

British and French armed reinforcements? Israeli troops were 100 km from cairo. Really sounds like they were going to be utterly destroyed. They gained more land from the six day war than any other war in the nation's history. The war on two of the three fronts didnt even last the whole six says. Friendly fire comes in every war.

The U.S. suppports Israel's dominance so it can serve as a surrogate for American interests in that vital strategic region. Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. could not send arms directly...like south africa, the contras, Guatemala under the military Junta , and Iran. Israel is like a government agency when it's conveient to use and you want something done quietly. According to Mattie Peled formor major general The majority of military aid is used to buy weapons to the U.S.

What threat? There is no proof that Saddam posed a threat to us. Remember that during the Vietnam War, we thought that there was an imminent threat as well -- the one that communism would spread to SE Asia and Australia.

Eisenhower's domino effect theory wasn't a threat directly of american soil.

Saddam not being a threat, how could he not be? he hates the US, had WMD's was trying to purchase missiles to launch said weapons. he also had ties to al qaeda training grounds for anti-american troops.

Like in Iraq, where we won't come within a mile of enemy troops?

in a fair fight like im talking about you're not in danger of dying, there is a difference. In a fair fight you get hurt, one on one its not to kill ur opponet it is to beat them.

Celebrities aren't, but ever since 9-11 the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly in favor of Bush. Even liberal outlets like CNN issued more articles in support of the war than against.

we arent talking about support of the war we are talking about support of Bush, and no the only mainstream media that hasnt been excessively critical of Bush is Fox News which is why they are branded a conservative news station when infact they are not.

No, the majority of black people support liberalism because of things like affirmative action and civil rights. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most liberal blacks, and they are both filthy rich.

How would you know, i live in amongst a community black. They are poor and believe republicans stole all their money and threw their brothers in jail. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of the black community and what they believe is considered a cultural command on other black people.

Not communism, socialism ... There's a significant difference.

I also hate when people misuse the term Liberalism. Liberalism is actually an 18th century philosophy that is closest to Libertarianism today. Modern liberalism is actually socialism.

in the context of which i used the word liberalism i meant socialism. Communism is what i meant regardless of the difference. communism the ideal of marx in which everyone is given the same pay, same housing, same power for someone who works fast food as someone who graduated from highschool and got their degree.




*bump for comradered*

[sikdragon]

the sad thing is the only one of you that at my level of debate is comradered. he may be wrong but he is good at it.

[Spirited Away]

the sad thing is the only one of you that at my level of debate is comradered. he may be wrong but he is good at it.

I thought pride is a sin? *runs away*

[ComradeRed]

[quote]babysitters, bus drivers,teachers, cops, wardens, gaurds. take your pick.[/quote]

If they "rebel" against teachers or babysitters, they are only hurting themselves. 2/3 of the people behind bars in America have never harmed another human being and shouldn't be in jail ... Rebelling against "cops, wardens, guards" may be justified in more than one situation.

[quote]when parents get back home after working all day and expect their kids to just do their chores and they arent done. I mean if there wasnt anything to rebel against where do we get teenage angst lyrics in today's songs? mostly from a kid who's father wasnt there for him growing up and when he finally is, the man is overbearing and condescending.<-- there is where the rebellion comes in, there is where the teenage runaway stats come from.[/quote]

Yes, rebelling against THE FATHER. Angst doesn't come from wanting to rebel ... angst comes from hopelessness in general. Hopeless people don't rebel.

[quote]ok so that isnt what he sold this was what happened.

"In 1994 President Clinton began personally authorizing the export of advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology directly to communist China. The exports took place with presidential waivers that included the signature of Bill Clinton. They also took place using loopholes and bureaucratic gray areas of U.S. export law.

The Clinton exports included such military items as advanced fiber optic communications; radiation hardened encrypted satellite control systems, encrypted radios and cellular phones, and encrypted navigation systems. According to the GAO, President Clinton even approved the sale of a fully operational, secure air traffic control system for the Chinese Air Force. "

-the little book 3 by Harold Thomas[/quote]

Yeah the government shouldn't be selling military equipment.

[quote]nearly daily terrorist attacks isnt persecution?[/quote]

If they withdrew from Palestine, the attacks would stop... By your logic, the Nazis were persecuted in France when the French underground fought back, using tactics that we would label as terrorist (assassinations, poisoning food and water, etc, robbery, extortion, coercion, etc.)

The Palestinian "terrorist" attacks, for the most part, are retaliation for the Israeli occupation (The original land given Israel did not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- Israel conquered these areas by launching a preemptive war in the 60s.)

[quote]well if you wanna get philisophical, can you PROVE anything? no you cant, proof comes as a bi-product of perception.[/quote]

I can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT certain things using the Empirical Method. You can't prove something like "God said so" using said method, which is accepted by society and the human race in general.

Proof is not a byproduct of perception. Reality is separate from perception. You can not see a bullet coming, and it will still kill you.

[quote]The koran the bible of the muslims(the mainstream religion of all of the middle east and the fastest growing religion.) contradicts itself several times when refering to the jews.[/quote]

So does the Old and New Testtament. What's your point?

[quote]In the beginning Mohammed wrote of the jews as a good people while the muslim nation was in talks of buying land, but when they refused, the jews are called a dispicable people.[/quote]

Land? When the Koran was written, the Jews didn't OWN any land ... Jewish economic power came from their control OF GOLD ... if anything, Jewish bankers would be negotiating with Muslims to buy THEIR LAND.

During the time, Jews WERE regarded as despicable, because in the Middle Ages, they owned all the banks and the gold and would charge you 20% interest for a loan. For this reason, maby people think credit card companies are despicable.

[quote]The Torah which does not contradict itself in any way refers to the Jews as God's chosen people.

These documents are the only way to know who God has chosen until his son's second return. so u can ask him when he gets here.[/quote]

What proves the Torah? What if I wrote a book about how the Jews are not God's chosen people? The Bible does contradict itself several times.

In Samuel, it tells you NOT to pay your taxes. But in Luke, it tells you to.
In Genesis 1, it says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. But in Genesis 2, it says that Adam was created before Eve.
Gensis 6 clearly states that Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. But in Gensis 7, the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.
In Exodus, God commands the Israelites to sacrifice animals, but in Jeremiah, he specifically says not to.

[quote]lol preemptive strike?? While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. Israel is constantly under attack so how could anything be a preemptive strike?
"The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."
-Nasser[/quote]

Only problem: Israel launched its first war in 1956, long before serious Arab hostilities. They had a secret treaty with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal. The raids launched in the 60s against Israel were mainly from Syria and Lebanon -- in response to the fact that Israeli troops occupied 1/3 of Syria and Mossad agents continued to perform assassinations in Lebanon and Beirut.

Nasser's quote likewise doesn't prove anything. Saying you are READY for war is different from saying you are about to start it. If Egypt really was preparing to attack Israel, why would Nasser mass his forces around the Suez Canal -- a hundred miles from the border with Israel?

[quote]British and French armed reinforcements? Israeli troops were 100 km from cairo. Really sounds like they were going to be utterly destroyed. They gained more land from the six day war than any other war in the nation's history. The war on two of the three fronts didnt even last the whole six says. Friendly fire comes in every war.[/quote]

First of all, I wasn't talking about the Six Day War. I was talking about the Suez War in 1956. Nasser's defense line around the Suez Canal was about to stop Israel. At this point, Nassar was supported by both the Soviets and the Americans. Eisenhower told the Israelis to withdraw from the Siani Peninsula, they agreed in public, but in secret British and French troops landed at Port Said and took the Suez Canal. In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.

"The Cold War inevitably invested the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proxy war element. Soviet involvement increased after the 1955 arms deal with Egypt. Israel's pro-western orientation was sealed by its promise to Britain and France to invade Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although the Americans forced Israel to relinquish control of the Suez Canal after 1956, Israel increasingly turned to the United States for arms, economic aid, and diplomatic support by the Six Days' War in 1967."
--David Isby, Atlas of Military History

[quote]The U.S. suppports Israel's dominance so it can serve as a surrogate for American interests in that vital strategic region. Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. could not send arms directly...like south africa, the contras, Guatemala under the military Junta , and Iran[/quote]

I read that as "Israel helped us give guns to the Apartheid, Nicaraguan rebels trying to overthrow a duly elected government, a military dictatorship right in our backyard, and ... Iran."

Explain how Israel helps our vital strategic interests again? Better yet, explain how South Africa, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have anything to do with our interests?

[quote]. Israel is like a government agency when it's conveient to use and you want something done quietly. According to Mattie Peled formor major general The majority of military aid is used to buy weapons to the U.S.[/quote]

I read that as "We're giving people money to buy weapons for us." The United STates doesn't buy foreign weapons very much: we build all our own. Moreover, we have the CIA for covert operations ...

[quote]Eisenhower's domino effect theory wasn't a threat directly of american soil.

Saddam not being a threat, how could he not be? he hates the US, had WMD's was trying to purchase missiles to launch said weapons.[/quote]

Congratulations, you also described Britain, France, China, and Russia.

[quote]he also had ties to al qaeda training grounds for anti-american troops.[/quote]

No he didn't. There were al-qaeda training grounds in Northern Iraq -- being used to support rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden and Hussein were ideologically opposed. The only thing they had in common was that they both don't like America. But Bin Laden was happy at America's toppling of Saddam -- not only has he achieved two of his three goals that he stated in the 1990s (get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, overthrow Hussein), he now can potentially put a Jihadist government in Iraq.

[quote]we arent talking about support of the war we are talking about support of Bush, and no the only mainstream media that hasnt been excessively critical of Bush is Fox News which is why they are branded a conservative news station when infact they are not.[/quote]

Fox News is to the right of most Americans. It's not conservative per se (a conservative organization would be, say American Conservative Magazine), but it's slightly to the right of center. Moreover, what has Bush done besides the war that's recieved a lot of media attention? Nothing.

[quote]How would you know, i live in amongst a community black. They are poor and believe republicans stole all their money and threw their brothers in jail. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are leaders of the black community and what they believe is considered a cultural command on other black people.[/quote]

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are precisely the kind of people who are holding other black people down...

[quote]in the context of which i used the word liberalism i meant socialism. Communism is what i meant regardless of the difference. communism the ideal of marx in which everyone is given the same pay, same housing, same power for someone who works fast food as someone who graduated from highschool and got their degree.[/quote]

Liberalism is not the same as socialism at all...

A liberal is someone like Howard Dean. A socialist would be someone like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Liberals appeal mainly to the upper and progressive middle class (The top 5% of American taxpayers voted 2 to 1 for Gore), while socialists mainly appeal to the poor (a liberal would do very well in an election in Massachusetts or Connecticut, while a socialist would do much better in West Virginia). A liberal would support environmentalism, a socialist would not. A liberal would support world peace and oppose the draft, while a socialist would support a draft and support ideological warfare (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and doink Gephardt all voted FOR the Iraq War. Liberalism comes from the term liberal, which means seeking to increase personal freedom. Socialism comes from a term which means seeking to improve the social good. Saying liberalism is the same as socialism is like saying conservatism is the same as libertarianism -- they've evolved to be similar, but not nearly the same.

You also misunderstand Marx -- it's from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Which is, in many ways, even worse than absolute equality -- since the person with the degree would have to work harder for the same thing.

[sikdragon]

[quote]If they "rebel" against teachers or babysitters, they are only hurting themselves. 2/3 of the people behind bars in America have never harmed another human being and shouldn't be in jail ... Rebelling against "cops, wardens, guards" may be justified in more than one situation.[/quote]

in most cases they wouldnt run into those kind of people if they were raised properly. If the cops are harassing people without cause, like we know they are, then they should've been raised right.

[quote]Yes, rebelling against THE FATHER. Angst doesn't come from wanting to rebel ... angst comes from hopelessness in general. Hopeless people don't rebel.[/quote]
w/e if they had both parents one nurturing, one overbearing, and one controlling the world they wouldn't be so hopeless. if the father was overbearing and condescending since the child was born the shock factor wouldnt be so big as to cause rebellion.

[quote]Yeah the government shouldn't be selling military equipment.
[/quote]
clinton

[quote]If they withdrew from Palestine, the attacks would stop... By your logic, the Nazis were persecuted in France when the French underground fought back, using tactics that we would label as terrorist (assassinations, poisoning food and water, etc, robbery, extortion, coercion, etc.)

The Palestinian "terrorist" attacks, for the most part, are retaliation for the Israeli occupation (The original land given Israel did not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- Israel conquered these areas by launching a preemptive war in the 60s.)[/quote]

key word 'conquered' the land is their's now. If you went to the store and bought a candy bar and when you were about to leave the cashier saw your candy bar had the golden ticket in it and started yelling at you saying you stole it, would you give it up?

[quote]
I can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT certain things using the Empirical Method. You can't prove something like "God said so" using said method, which is accepted by society and the human race in general.

Proof is not a byproduct of perception. Reality is separate from perception. You can not see a bullet coming, and it will still kill you.[/quote]

God said so and the earth and it's in habitants were formed. you can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and feel it.

you can hear the explosion of gun powder. and when you die do you know you are dead? do you know the bullet killed you? someone else does, thus, third party PERCEPTION.

[quote]So does the Old and New Testtament. What's your point?[/quote]

It does not. and my point is the koran is flawed.

[quote]
Land? When the Koran was written, the Jews didn't OWN any land ... Jewish economic power came from their control OF GOLD ... if anything, Jewish bankers would be negotiating with Muslims to buy THEIR LAND.

During the time, Jews WERE regarded as despicable, because in the Middle Ages, they owned all the banks and the gold and would charge you 20% interest for a loan. For this reason, maby people think credit card companies are despicable.[/quote]

the jews occupied land.

Are you saying that Jews ran England? Last i remember the English had their own gold.

[quote]What proves the Torah? What if I wrote a book about how the Jews are not God's chosen people? The Bible does contradict itself several times.

In Samuel, it tells you -NOT to pay your taxes. But in Luke, it tells you to.
In Genesis 1, it says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. But in Genesis 2, it says that Adam was created before Eve.
Gensis 6 clearly states that Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. But in Gensis 7, the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.
In Exodus, God commands the Israelites to sacrifice animals, but in Jeremiah, he specifically says not to.
[/quote]


Taxes weren't introduced until 1 kings. Samuel was about samuel and his life and the war between the hebrews and the philistines.

Genesis 1 says adam and eve were created on the same day, not at the same time.

Genesis 6 God was speaking of wild animals that would come to him on their own. In Genesis 7 God told Noah to take 7 types of domesticated clean animals, two types of domesticated unclean animals, and 7 types of domesticated fowl.

If you are referring to jeremiah 6:20 God was saying their frankincense was not the kind of sacrifice he wanted.

[quote]Only problem: Israel launched its first war in 1956, long before serious Arab hostilities. They had a secret treaty with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal. The raids launched in the 60s against Israel were mainly from Syria and Lebanon -- in response to the fact that Israeli troops occupied 1/3 of Syria and Mossad agents continued to perform assassinations in Lebanon and Beirut.

Nasser's quote likewise doesn't prove anything. Saying you are READY for war is different from saying you are about to start it. If Egypt really was preparing to attack Israel, why would Nasser mass his forces around the Suez Canal -- a hundred miles from the border with Israel?[/quote]

[quote]First of all, I wasn't talking about the Six Day War. I was talking about the Suez War in 1956. Nasser's defense line around the Suez Canal was about to stop Israel. At this point, Nassar was supported by both the Soviets and the Americans. Eisenhower told the Israelis to withdraw from the Siani Peninsula, they agreed in public, but in secret British and French troops landed at Port Said and took the Suez Canal. In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.

"The Cold War inevitably invested the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proxy war element. Soviet involvement increased after the 1955 arms deal with Egypt. Israel's pro-western orientation was sealed by its promise to Britain and France to invade Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although the Americans forced Israel to relinquish control of the Suez Canal after 1956, Israel increasingly turned to the United States for arms, economic aid, and diplomatic support by the Six Days' War in 1967."
--David Isby, Atlas of Military History[/quote]

"As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Britain and France, both of whom were in the process of losing their centuries-old empires, decided on a strategy straight our of their 19th Century Imperial histories. This plan led to a joint invasion and occupation of the Suez Canal zone by Britain and France. This was meant to reassert control of this vital waterway to the British and French companies stung by Nasser's bold nationalization. At France's suggestion, planning was coordinated with Israel, a fact which all three nations denied for years afterwards.

On October 29, 1956, Israeli troops invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and quickly overcame opposition as they raced for Suez. The next day, Britain and France, following their part of the script, offered to temporarily occupy the Canal Zone and suggested a 10 mile buffer on either side which would separate the Egyptian forces from the Israelis. Nasser of course refused, and on October 31, Egypt was attacked and invaded by the military forces of Britain and France. In response to these developments, the Soviet Union, which at the time was ruthlessly suppressing an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary, threatened to intervene on Egypt's behalf. President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt. The United States, caught by surprise by the dual invasions, was more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Britain and France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez. The war itself lasted for only a week, and invading forces were withdrawn within the month. As a result, Egypt now firmly aligned herself with the Soviet Union, which armed Egypt and other Arab nations for the continuing struggle against Israel."

Lee, R. "The History Guy: Arab-Israeli Wars: Suez/Sinai War (1956) "

http://www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html (1999).


Nasser's quote proves that any attack after that could not be considered preemptive.


and as for this[quote]In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.[/quote]

Many armed forces not all. Israel could have taken Cairo with the soldiers they had there and you are making assumptions about attacking intelligence cruisers. Our guy shouldn't have been there. The USS Liberty was mistaken for an enemy ship.



[quote]I read that as "Israel helped us give guns to the Apartheid, Nicaraguan rebels trying to overthrow a duly elected government, a military dictatorship right in our backyard, and ... Iran."

Explain how Israel helps our vital strategic interests again? Better yet, explain how South Africa, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have anything to do with our interests?
[/quote]

first i must ask what you know about american interests.

[quote]I read that as "We're giving people money to buy weapons for us." The United STates doesn't buy foreign weapons very much: we build all our own. Moreover, we have the CIA for covert operations ...[/quote]

no we give them money to buy our weapons.

We have the CIA and Israelis running covert operations.

[quote]Congratulations, you also described Britain, France, China, and Russia.[/quote]
All of those countries are politically stable.

[quote]No he didn't. There were al-qaeda training grounds in Northern Iraq -- being used to support rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden and Hussein were ideologically opposed. The only thing they had in common was that they both don't like America. But Bin Laden was happy at America's toppling of Saddam -- not only has he achieved two of his three goals that he stated in the 1990s (get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, overthrow Hussein), he now can potentially put a Jihadist government in Iraq.[/quote]

They may have been ideologically opposed but joining together to defeat a common enemy would be the best way to go. If that wasn't the plan i seriously believe they need new strategists for the interests of al-qaeda.

[quote]Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are precisely the kind of people who are holding other black people down...[/quote]

thats true but the black community is unaware for the most part.

[quote]Liberalism is not the same as socialism at all...

A liberal is someone like Howard Dean. A socialist would be someone like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Liberals appeal mainly to the upper and progressive middle class (The top 5% of American taxpayers voted 2 to 1 for Gore), while socialists mainly appeal to the poor (a liberal would do very well in an election in Massachusetts or Connecticut, while a socialist would do much better in West Virginia). A liberal would support environmentalism, a socialist would not. A liberal would support world peace and oppose the draft, while a socialist would support a draft and support ideological warfare (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and doink Gephardt all voted FOR the Iraq War. Liberalism comes from the term liberal, which means seeking to increase personal freedom. Socialism comes from a term which means seeking to improve the social good. Saying liberalism is the same as socialism is like saying conservatism is the same as libertarianism -- they've evolved to be similar, but not nearly the same.

You also misunderstand Marx -- it's from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Which is, in many ways, even worse than absolute equality -- since the person with the degree would have to work harder for the same thing. [/quote]

the liberals and socialists are all on the same side, regardless of the enviroment and the draft.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]w/e if they had both parents one nurturing, one overbearing, and one controlling the world they wouldn't be so hopeless.[/quote]

That's three parents, isn't it?

[quote]key word 'conquered' the land is their's now. If you went to the store and bought a candy bar and when you were about to leave the cashier saw your candy bar had the golden ticket in it and started yelling at you saying you stole it, would you give it up?[/quote]

No, that's "bought", not "conquered". See the Israelis never paid the Palestinians for their land ... it was more like If you went to the store and you robbed the cashier for a candy bar, you're damn right he'd want it back.

[quote]God said so and the earth and it's in habitants were formed. you can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and feel it.[/quote]

I thought God was incorporeal. If God is a spirit, how can you see, hear, touch, taste, or feel him?

[quote]you can hear the explosion of gun powder. and when you die do you know you are dead? do you know the bullet killed you? someone else does, thus, third party PERCEPTION.[/quote]

But YOUR reality in that case is that you don't KNOW what killed you ... only someone else did. That doesn't change the fact that it does.

[quote]It does not. and my point is the koran is flawed.[/quote]

So are most books that don't follow the empirical method

[quote]the jews occupied land.

Are you saying that Jews ran England? Last i remember the English had their own gold. [/quote]

In the Middle Ages, the Jews owned most of the gold in England ... the Magna Carta specifically deals with Jews.

[quote]Taxes weren't introduced until 1 kings. Samuel was about samuel and his life and the war between the hebrews and the philistines.[/quote]

READ Samuel. WHen Israel is asking for a king, he says, "He will take a tenth of your sheep, and of your vineyards, etc."

[quote]Nasser's quote proves that any attack after that could not be considered preemptive.[/quote]

Um... because he said he was READY FOR WAR. Thomas Jefferson said he was READY to go to War with France over New Orleans ... that didn't mean he actually did. Being READY to do something and actually doing it are different.

[quote]Many armed forces not all. Israel could have taken Cairo with the soldiers they had there and you are making assumptions about attacking intelligence cruisers. Our guy shouldn't have been there. The USS Liberty was mistaken for an enemy ship.[/quote]

The USS Liberty had an American flag and was broadcasting on American wavelengths...

Israel could not have taken Cairo. Their supplies were running short and the Egyptians had a very strong defense along hte line of the Suez Canal. The reason Israel HAD to attack first was exactly because they were running out of supplies. In order to take Cairo, they would've needed their entire army in Siani, which would've made Syria overrun them from the North.

[quote]first i must ask what you know about american interests.[/quote]

I think our most important interest is not being attacked.

[quote]We have the CIA and Israelis running covert operations.[/quote]

Mossad is the world's biggest terrorist organization. The fact that we support them is morally reprehensible. The CIA at least is accountable to things like "laws" and "ethics". Some of the things that Mossad has done makes Osama bin Laden look like a good guy. Mossad once killed a member of the Norwegian Government for giving a speech opposing Israel. They disguised it as a terrorist attack, but a Norwegian Policeman was able to take down the license plate of a speeding car. It was clearly an Israeli governmental hit. The United Nations, INCLUDING AMERICA, condemned Israel... which kept doing stuff like this.

[quote]All of those countries are politically stable.[/quote]

Russia is hardly politically stable. Half their provinces are in revolt.

[quote]They may have been ideologically opposed but joining together to defeat a common enemy would be the best way to go. If that wasn't the plan i seriously believe they need new strategists for the interests of al-qaeda.[/quote]

But why... Iraq? Bin Laden was much more likely to team up with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[quote]the liberals and socialists are all on the same side, regardless of the enviroment and the draft.[/quote]

And what side is that? The side that disagrees with you?

If you defined everyone that disagreed with you on anything as "the other side", you'd lose everything you ever tried.

[gerundio]

fudge REDNECKS. fudge THE NRA. fudge RACISTS. fudge HOMOPHOBICS. fudge YOU SIKDRAGON.

The United States would be a much better country without these people.

[sikdragon]

fudge people who label people. its people like you that should be taken out and shot.

[sweetdreamsx3]

There's nothing wrong with our country except when people say it's a "free country", it's not. Not one bit. Not at all.

[gerundio]

fudge people who label people. its people like you that should be taken out and shot.

WOW. LAUGH MY ding dong ASS OFF.

I should be shot? LOL.

You're an internet tough guy now, huh?

LMAO. And why exactly should I be shot? Oh, and what gun do you suggest to do the job?

[sikdragon]

im not tryin to act tough, im just saying instigators like you should have two put in the back of the head.

[Heathasm]

its not a disease it is a choice

daresay that is quite ignorant beyong all means?
my moms a hairdresser (lol) so i've met alot of gay men and woman through her
and i've heard their stories. Some try desperately hard to be heterosexual, they even go as far as getting married and having children...and it all goes back to when were were born and the fact that some male and female babies are born with a higher dose of the opposite sex hormones.....

but im almost sure you would rather a person suffer and be miserable with the companionship in their lives rather them be ironically gay and lead at least a somewhat undecided bu happy life....seriously

[gerundio]

im not tryin to act tough, im just saying instigators like you should have two put in the back of the head.

Suuuurrrre.

So...

Are you threatening me?

[gigiopolis]

I actually chose "yes I believe everything America has done is good...etc". But now I kind of change my mind after reading sikdragon's message. You've just embarassed yourself and your fellow Americans. Jeez. Get a life. Just because America is with the times now with things such as gay marriages doesn't mean it's becoming "pussified."

You, however, I think you're still stuck in the middle ages. Get on with it, it's the 21st century. It's people like you who make humans around the world hate America.

[sikdragon]

embarassed? no. I am not stuck in the middle ages. I think you need to reread my message up there. We as a nation have slowly been losing the meaning of what makes a man. Without a male influence children grow up with no discipline, or get discipline but no nurturing. There is the problem because generation after generation are becoming more and more unstable. Soon the whole country will be unbalanced and will leave us open to attack. Yes an actuall invasion of US soil. If it werent for people like me supposedly stuck in the "middle ages" we would just be a territory of Russia or some other country. I am still confused about how my statement reflects any lack of a life?!


Gerundio that wasnt a threat. I am saying your instigation is causing more death and division than any redneck supremist, which I am not.


[quote]daresay that is quite ignorant beyong all means?
my moms a hairdresser (lol) so i've met alot of gay men and woman through her
and i've heard their stories. Some try desperately hard to be heterosexual, they even go as far as getting married and having children...and it all goes back to when were were born and the fact that some male and female babies are born with a higher dose of the opposite sex hormones.....

but im almost sure you would rather a person suffer and be miserable with the companionship in their lives rather them be ironically gay and lead at least a somewhat undecided bu happy life....seriously  [/quote]

So you are saying homosexuals should recieve therapy like cleptomaniacs and compulsive liars rather than take responsibility for their own short comings? Everyone has their problems and it is how we choose to handle them makes us good or evil in the eyes of man. If a person is gay and they just arent attracted to the opposite sex in any way, why not try celibacy? What if you were attracted to an animal? What if you were attracted to children and not your peers? That perversness would not be acceptable. Celibacy is the only escape. Like a cleptomaniac choosing to buy rather than to steal even though stealing seems easier.


[quote]That's three parents, isn't it?[/quote]

No that is two parents and God.

[quote]No, that's "bought", not "conquered". See the Israelis never paid the Palestinians for their land ... it was more like If you went to the store and you robbed the cashier for a candy bar, you're damn right he'd want it back.
[/quote]

No it's not the same. There is no law against the conquering that the Israelis did. It is illegal to steal.

[quote]I thought God was incorporeal. If God is a spirit, how can you see, hear, touch, taste, or feel him?
[/quote]

No that is not what i was saying. Using the empirical method you can prove that when God says something, it happens. "Let there be light." so on and so forth.

[quote]But YOUR reality in that case is that you don't KNOW what killed you ... only someone else did. That doesn't change the fact that it does.
[/quote]

Have you ever been dead? no. So you don't know if you are dead or not. You could still be alive. It is only by third party perception that your death is recognized.

[quote]So are most books that don't follow the empirical method
[/quote]

No the empirical method has nothing to do with it.

[quote]
In the Middle Ages, the Jews owned most of the gold in England ... the Magna Carta specifically deals with Jews.
[/quote]

Well that is just one more reason that they were despised, not the only reason.

[quote]READ Samuel. WHen Israel is asking for a king, he says, "He will take a tenth of your sheep, and of your vineyards, etc."
[/quote]

I have read it. You said that Samuel says not to pay your taxes when in fact it does not.

[quote]Um... because he said he was READY FOR WAR. Thomas Jefferson said he was READY to go to War with France over New Orleans ... that didn't mean he actually did. Being READY to do something and actually doing it are different.
[/quote]

when they are aware that an attack is being provoked, there is no way you can say that was preemptive. That was the point I was trying to make. Nasser's quote supports that.

[quote]The USS Liberty had an American flag and was broadcasting on American wavelengths...

Israel could not have taken Cairo. Their supplies were running short and the Egyptians had a very strong defense along hte line of the Suez Canal. The reason Israel HAD to attack first was exactly because they were running out of supplies. In order to take Cairo, they would've needed their entire army in Siani, which would've made Syria overrun them from the North.

[/quote]

You do not know this. No one knows what could've happened because it didn't happen. We can only speculate. The Israeli was 100 km from Cairo. In my opinion they could have taken Cairo and all of Africa if that was God's will.

[quote]
I think our most important interest is not being attacked.

[/quote]

Ok so if we were to become a communist nation so the world would become our allies would you believe America's interest would be fulfilled? but that's right you did say you think, so i guess you should rethink.


[quote]Mossad is the world's biggest terrorist organization. The fact that we support them is morally reprehensible. The CIA at least is accountable to things like "laws" and "ethics". Some of the things that Mossad has done makes Osama bin Laden look like a good guy. Mossad once killed a member of the Norwegian Government for giving a speech opposing Israel. They disguised it as a terrorist attack, but a Norwegian Policeman was able to take down the license plate of a speeding car. It was clearly an Israeli governmental hit. The United Nations, INCLUDING AMERICA, condemned Israel... which kept doing stuff like this.
[/quote]

Israel protecting their interest in not letting the power of their enemies rise beyond their defenses is bad? The most hated country in the world defending itself using a different set of laws in war is different. Israel was attacked first.

[quote]Russia is hardly politically stable. Half their provinces are in revolt.
[/quote]

Russia is a super power.

The middle eastern countries are runned by counsels of hundreds of princes.

[quote]But why... Iraq? Bin Laden was much more likely to team up with Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.
[/quote]

Iraq was a very rich country. The whole of the nation's resources was being used to fund the interests of Muslim fundamentalists and terrorist organizations.

[quote]And what side is that? The side that disagrees with you?

If you defined everyone that disagreed with you on anything as "the other side", you'd lose everything you ever tried. [/quote]

Not the side that disagrees with me. It is the side of greedy ignorant bastards.

Of course that statement appears to support yours, but it doesn't.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]embarassed? no. I am not stuck in the middle ages. I think you need to reread my message up there. We as a nation have slowly been losing the meaning of what makes a man. Without a male influence children grow up with no discipline, or get discipline but no nurturing. There is the problem because generation after generation are becoming more and more unstable. Soon the whole country will be unbalanced and will leave us open to attack. Yes an actuall invasion of US soil. If it werent for people like me supposedly stuck in the "middle ages" we would just be a territory of Russia or some other country. I am still confused about how my statement reflects any lack of a life?![/quote]

No country on Earth has the physical capability of invading US soil... the two oceans make it hard for large armies to land.

[quote]Gerundio that wasnt a threat. I am saying your instigation is causing more death and division than any redneck supremist, which I am not.[/quote]

How so? The war is what caused death in the first place... By opposing it, you are causing division, which is not a bad thing most of the tmie.

Furthermore, the war was an executive (not congressional) action, and therefore Unconstitutional. Resisting--to the point of defensive force--an unconstitutionaal action of government is not only justified, but is a duty of all citizens.

[quote]So you are saying homosexuals should recieve therapy like cleptomaniacs and compulsive liars rather than take responsibility for their own short comings? Everyone has their problems and it is how we choose to handle them makes us good or evil in the eyes of man. If a person is gay and they just arent attracted to the opposite sex in any way, why not try celibacy? What if you were attracted to an animal? What if you were attracted to children and not your peers? That perversness would not be acceptable. Celibacy is the only escape. Like a cleptomaniac choosing to buy rather than to steal even though stealing seems easier.[/quote]

Sex with animals is legal in most states ... you see, animals don't have rights.

Sex with children SHOULD be legal --- AS LONG AS the children consent. You see, consentual activity is inherently legitimate, whereas passing laws against such activity is inherently coercive, and therefore bad.

If two people want to have sex, it is their right. If you oppose having sex with people of your same gender, Don't Do It!

[quote]No it's not the same. There is no law against the conquering that the Israelis did. It is illegal to steal.[/quote]

The Holocaust was cmopletely legal... does that mean it was a good idea?

In either case, law was used as legal fiat. It was not legitimate. The Palestinians had every right to resist an Israeli takeover of their land that the Poles had to resist the Germans, or we had to resist the British in the War of 1812.

[quote]No that is not what i was saying. Using the empirical method you can prove that when God says something, it happens. "Let there be light." so on and so forth.[/quote]

That's completely correct actually.

The logical statement If P, then Q is always true IF P IS FALSE in teh first place.

"When God says something, it happens" is true -- because "God says something" is false. Now try to prove using that method that GOD SAYS THINGS. It becomes harder, doesn't it?

[quote]Have you ever been dead? no. So you don't know if you are dead or not. You could still be alive. It is only by third party perception that your death is recognized.[/quote]

So... if I perceive you to be dead, then you are dead?

[quote]No the empirical method has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

To the contrary, the empirical method is how facts are established. It has everything to do with everything.

[quote]I have read it. You said that Samuel says not to pay your taxes when in fact it does not.[/quote]

Samuel says taxes are UNJUSTIFIED, not not to pay them. Let me get my bible:
1 Samuel 8:10-18:
"So Samuel reported all tehy words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow the ground and to reap his harvest, and to make implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He wil ltake one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courrtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to work. He will take one-tenth of your flock, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry ouy because of your king, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

The Italics sections clearly describe a tax.

[quote]when they are aware that an attack is being provoked, there is no way you can say that was preemptive. That was the point I was trying to make. Nasser's quote supports that.[/quote]

A preemptive attack is when you attack first withotu being attacked. Israel was not attacked by Egypt. They attacked first.

It doesn't matter what they said. When someone says your hair looks messy is not an excuse to hit them.

[quote]You do not know this. No one knows what could've happened because it didn't happen. We can only speculate. The Israeli was 100 km from Cairo. In my opinion they could have taken Cairo and all of Africa if that was God's will.[/quote]

Too bad the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. .

The Israeli advance had STOPPED. They didn't have enough troops to break the Egyptian defenses around the Suez Canal. If they could've taken Cairo, they would have -- since that would've ended the war. The Israelis already overran their supply lines -- if the war went on, Egypt would've been able to rally and push the Israelis back. Plus, both the Soviets AND the Americans were supporting Egypt at this time ... a world war where the USSR and USA and teh Arabs allied against Israel and France would've ended very quickly in a USSR/USA/Egypt victory.

The Germans TOTALLY destroyed the Russian Army in 1941, but they STILL lost the war -- because they overextended their supplies. Without oil, they had to abandon their tanks while the Russians regrouped in Moscow to push them back.

THem taking all of Africa is entirely uneralistic -- America couldn't even do that. Guns are only one small part of the military -- the most important part of military science is supply and logistics. No power on Earth can supply forces everywhere in Africa. It's a big continent.

God is good for insprinig your troops to bravely defend teh home soil... but God won't rush new oil to your tanks, and new food to your troops.

[quote]Ok so if we were to become a communist nation so the world would become our allies would you believe America's interest would be fulfilled? but that's right you did say you think, so i guess you should rethink.[/quote]

No. I said BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ, communist parties around the world are GAINING STRENGTH and will soon be able to control the governments of our key allies, which will FORCE us to resort to Isolationism.

[quote]Israel protecting their interest in not letting the power of their enemies rise beyond their defenses is bad?  The most hated country in the world defending itself using a different set of laws in war is different. Israel was attacked first.[/quote]

No they weren't. The first two Arab-Israeli Wars, in 1948 and 1956, were started by Israel. Arab nations did not attack Israel until 1967.

[quote]Russia is a super power.[/quote]

The fact that they are losing a war with Cechneya proves they aren't.

[quote]The middle eastern countries are runned by counsels of hundreds of princes.[/quote]

If they are that weak, then they don't pose a threat to us. QED attack was unjustifiable.

[quote]Iraq was a very rich country. The whole of the nation's resources was being used to fund the interests of Muslim fundamentalists and terrorist organizations.[/quote]

Or fighting terrorism ... Hussein waged a massive war against Al-Qaeda when they bottled up in the North of the country. Al-Qaeda was supported by teh Kurds, who are historically very hostile to Saddam.

[quote]Not the side that disagrees with me. It is the side of greedy ignorant bastards.[/quote]

Rrrrrrrrright...

There are a lot of greedy ignorant bastards on both sides.

But the distinction between Liberal and Socialist is HUGE:
From the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
Liberalism - 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority

Socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Get it? Liberalism says: Individual good. Socialism says: Individual bad. Liberalism says: Capitalism, Constitutional Democracy, and Liberty. Socialism says: Planned Economy, Authoritarianism, and Social Equality. Liberalism is like the Thomas Jefferson. Socialsim is like Karl Marx.

MOST democrats today are actually socialists, not liberals (though a few can still be called liberals). There are very few liberals left in America -- and they are probably evenly split between teh Republicans and Democrats.

[cornflakes]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Nothing wrong with Socialism.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

[Spirited Away]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Then leave. I don't think I'd want you to be here to vote for an administration when you don't seem to understand how politics work. I'll give you a hint: Congress.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

What countries are you comparing the US with to get that kind of conclusion? You do realize the scheme of things right? When you're in power, there will be people who want to take you down... I thought, that much was obvious .

[cornflakes]

I know politics darling.
I don't kiss Bush's ass too.

[cornflakes]

oops double post.

[Spirited Away]

I know politics darling.
I don't kiss Bush's ass too.

Kissing ass is overrated. Politics shouldn't be.

Define kissing ass, then we'll talk. Though I don't know when patriotic became equal with kissing ass.

[ComradeRed]

An American here, and I hate it. America is now a bastard of a country. It should not govern the world. We should remove the current administration.

Nothing wrong with Socialism.

And America is not safe anymore, the oceans don't protect us anymore. As 9.11 showed us.

Socialism is the worst ideology ever to be devised by man.

Even though socialism itself is well-intentioned, it paves the road to violent Nazi and authoritarian ideologies. Socialism causes a psychological change in the people, making them dependant on government, and thus almost guarantees that a malignant oppressive one will take power. Read FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom for more information on this phenomenon. But I will say this:

Before Hitler took power in Germany, the government was controlled by the Democratic Socialists.
In the period before Stalin came to power in Russia, the government was run under the socialist government of Lenin (their Constitution comes almost directly from Karl Marx).
In communist China, a socialist government reigned for 50 years before being replaced by Mao's Red Government.

EVERY dictatorship in the last 150 years has been preceded by socialism.

America may not be safe from attack, but it is safe from invasion. It's one thing to blow up NYC. It's another to occupy it with troops.

[sikdragon]

[quote]No country on Earth has the physical capability of invading US soil... the two oceans make it hard for large armies to land.
[/quote]

Number one, I wasn't talking to you with that one.
Number two, You are talking about currently, I was talking about long into the future.

[quote]How so? The war is what caused death in the first place... By opposing it, you are causing division, which is not a bad thing most of the tmie.

Furthermore, the war was an executive (not congressional) action, and therefore Unconstitutional. Resisting--to the point of defensive force--an unconstitutionaal action of government is not only justified, but is a duty of all citizens.
[/quote]

Buddy, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about with Gerundio.

[quote]
Sex with animals is legal in most states ... you see, animals don't have rights.

Sex with children SHOULD be legal --- AS LONG AS the children consent. You see, consentual activity is inherently legitimate, whereas passing laws against such activity is inherently coercive, and therefore bad.

If two people want to have sex, it is their right. If you oppose having sex with people of your same gender, Don't Do It!

[/quote]

That doesnt make it less perverse.

Pedophilia shouldn't be legal. Children lack understanding of their situation with a consent seeking adult. Adolescence with sexual expierience with an adult grow up traumatized and are physically hurt. Children cannot give consent due to their lack of knowledge and probable lack of parental consent.

[quote]

The Holocaust was cmopletely legal... does that mean it was a good idea?

In either case, law was used as legal fiat. It was not legitimate. The Palestinians had every right to resist an Israeli takeover of their land that the Poles had to resist the Germans, or we had to resist the British in the War of 1812.
[/quote]

They have the right to resist. Without the power to overcome the offending party they are no longer entitled to their land. Power is law.

[quote]That's completely correct actually.

The logical statement If P, then Q is always true IF P IS FALSE in teh first place.

"When God says something, it happens" is true -- because "God says something" is false. Now try to prove using that method that GOD SAYS THINGS. It becomes harder, doesn't it?[/quote]

It does become harder but some of the words God has said have been recorded and the effects can be: seen, heard, felt, smelt, and tasted around the world.

[quote]
So... if I perceive you to be dead, then you are dead?

[/quote]
Yes, in your reality.


[quote]To the contrary, the empirical method is how facts are established. It has everything to do with everything.
[/quote]
NO. It has nothing to do with the point I was making by saying the way it was written can be read and you can prove it's flaws logically.

[quote]
Samuel says taxes are UNJUSTIFIED, not not to pay them. Let me get my bible:
1 Samuel 8:10-18:
"So Samuel reported all tehy words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said "These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow the ground and to reap his harvest, and to make implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He wil ltake one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and courrtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to work. He will take one-tenth of your flock, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry ouy because of your king, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.

The Italics sections clearly describe a tax.[/quote]

the word tax was not introduced until later on.

That is saying they will be taxed by their King, not to not pay the taxes.

not not paying them means to pay them, double negative you see.

Even if something on Earth is unjust, like the Police, The Bible still says to follow the laws of the land. That is to the point where you have a choice between God and law.

[quote]A preemptive attack is when you attack first withotu being attacked. Israel was not attacked by Egypt. They attacked first.

It doesn't matter what they said. When someone says your hair looks messy is not an excuse to hit them.
[/quote]

preemptive means to attack before with only one side having knowledge to gain an advantage over an enemy strike. Like a surprise attack.

Nasser was aware of his provocation of Israel and was expecting an attack soon.

[quote]Too bad the Ark of the Covenant was in Ethiopia. .

The Israeli advance had STOPPED. They didn't have enough troops to break the Egyptian defenses around the Suez Canal. If they could've taken Cairo, they would have -- since that would've ended the war. The Israelis already overran their supply lines -- if the war went on, Egypt would've been able to rally and push the Israelis back. Plus, both the Soviets AND the Americans were supporting Egypt at this time ... a world war where the USSR and USA and teh Arabs allied against Israel and France would've ended very quickly in a USSR/USA/Egypt victory.

The Germans TOTALLY destroyed the Russian Army in 1941, but they STILL lost the war -- because they overextended their supplies. Without oil, they had to abandon their tanks while the Russians regrouped in Moscow to push them back.

THem taking all of Africa is entirely uneralistic -- America couldn't even do that. Guns are only one small part of the military -- the most important part of military science is supply and logistics. No power on Earth can supply forces everywhere in Africa. It's a big continent.

God is good for insprinig your troops to bravely defend teh home soil... but God won't rush new oil to your tanks, and new food to your troops.
[/quote]

IF< key word. If it is God's will, it will happen.

God will rush new oil to tanks and new food to troops if that is for the good of his will.


[quote]No. I said BECAUSE WE INVADED IRAQ, communist parties around the world are GAINING STRENGTH and will soon be able to control the governments of our key allies, which will FORCE us to resort to Isolationism.
[/quote]
So we are to let our people die to keep allies?

[quote]No they weren't. The first two Arab-Israeli Wars, in 1948 and 1956, were started by Israel. Arab nations did not attack Israel until 1967.
[/quote]

They were attacked on several occasions long before the arab nations of today were established.

[quote]The fact that they are losing a war with Cechneya proves they aren't.
[/quote]

If we were to launch a nuclear missile at them, they could launch many back in retalliation. That makes them a super power.

[quote]
If they are that weak, then they don't pose a threat to us. QED attack was unjustifiable.
[/quote]

No I didn't say weak, i said unstable. Their governments are so wishy-washy they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.

[quote]Or fighting terrorism ... Hussein waged a massive war against Al-Qaeda when they bottled up in the North of the country. Al-Qaeda was supported by teh Kurds, who are historically very hostile to Saddam.

[/quote]

Ok whatever that still doesnt make them any less of the threat they were to the US.


[quote]

Rrrrrrrrright...

There are a lot of greedy ignorant bastards on both sides.

But the distinction between Liberal and Socialist is HUGE:
From the AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
Liberalism - 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority

Socialism - 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Get it? Liberalism says: Individual good. Socialism says: Individual bad. Liberalism says: Capitalism, Constitutional Democracy, and Liberty. Socialism says: Planned Economy, Authoritarianism, and Social Equality. Liberalism is like the Thomas Jefferson. Socialsim is like Karl Marx.

MOST democrats today are actually socialists, not liberals (though a few can still be called liberals). There are very few liberals left in America -- and they are probably evenly split between teh Republicans and Democrats.
[/quote]

I didn't say there weren't any greedy bastards in the republican party. I was saying they both liberals and closet socialistsin the democratic party are trying to make this country socialist. The liberals who don't believe they are making us into a socialist country are still supporting the party financially and with face value giving the socialist party popular puppets to help sway the majority.

[quote]There's nothing wrong with our country except when people say it's a "free country", it's not. Not one bit. Not at all. [/quote]

as of now we can still carry bibles of any type and can openly be any religion without direct government persecution.
We are considerably more free than many countries.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]Number one, I wasn't talking to you with that one.
Number two, You are talking about currently, I was talking about long into the future.[/quote]

But since all reality is perception, oceans don't really exist. In fact, we are being invaded by Canadians right now -- you just don't see it.

[quote]That doesnt make it less perverse.[/quote]

Perverse is anything that is unnatural, right?

The natural purpose of sex is to have children. Therefore, ANY sexual lifestyle that has a purpose other than having children is perverse. Monogamy is technically a perverse sexual relationship -- since it is not necessary for the purpose of having children. So is celibacy. The only non-perverse sexual relationship is trying to have as much sex to produce as many children as possible.

[quote]Pedophilia shouldn't be legal. Children lack understanding of their situation with a consent seeking adult. Adolescence with sexual expierience with an adult grow up traumatized and are physically hurt. Children cannot give consent due to their lack of knowledge and probable lack of parental consent.[/quote]

You are making generalizations -- a lot of adults don't even have the mental capability to choose to have sex, but a lot of 15 year olds do.

[quote]They have the right to resist. Without the power to overcome the offending party they are no longer entitled to their land. Power is law.[/quote]

So whoever has teh most guns is right?

Then you have no right to complain about terrorist attacks against Israel. If Arafat gets nuclear weapons and blows Tel Aviv into glass, then he would be perfectly justified according to yo -- after all, power is law.

In fact, if you argue that might makes right, it's hard to say that anyone has rights or entitlements at all -- which means that the fundamental basis of the law doesn't exist. If the ends justify the means, then law does not exist. (since the law addresses means, not ends). In that case, power is NOT law -- there IS no law. You have anarchy --> which is bad because it leads to chaos and warfare. The ONLY way we will ever get peace in Israel/Palestine is if the two sides get together and draft a common set of laws that derives from legitimacy, not power. BUT we must allow them to set their own course -- it's not our fight.

[quote]It does become harder but some of the words God has said have been recorded and the effects can be: seen, heard, felt, smelt, and tasted around the world.[/quote]

But if all reality is perception as you argue, then you can't say that you've ever actually seen heard felt smelt or tasted anything real.

[quote]Yes, in your reality.[/quote]

There is only ONE reality. People have different TAKES on it (i.e. perceptions), thus people SEE reality differently, but there is only ONE objective reality, which is what holds people together. It's why we percieve the same things.

[quote]the word tax was not introduced until later on.[/quote]

But that was STILL A TAX! A tax by any other name is still a tax. You're arguing semantics.

[quote]That is saying they will be taxed by their King, not to not pay the taxes.

not not paying them means to pay them, double negative you see.[/quote]

No, it's arguing that TAXES ARE BAD. The Bible never says not to pay taxes, it says that taxes are bad.

[quote]Even if something on Earth is unjust, like the Police, The Bible still says to follow the laws of the land. That is to the point where you have a choice between God and law.[/quote]

Yes, I believe you are referring to Romans 13... which is another HUGE contradiction... if everyone is supposed to follow the laws of the land, why didn't Jesus worship Zeus? Why did the Jews complain about their slavery? Etc.

[quote]preemptive means to attack before with only one side having knowledge to gain an advantage over an enemy strike. Like a surprise attack.

Nasser was aware of his provocation of Israel and was expecting an attack soon.[/quote]

It WAS a surprise attack ... that's why it ended so quickly. Egypt's defense line was over 100 miles inland. If they knew about the attack, they would've defended closer to the border.

[quote]IF< key word. If it is God's will, it will happen.

God will rush new oil to tanks and new food to troops if that is for the good of his will.[/quote]

"If it is God's will, it will happen" is a true statement.

Of course, it was not God's will so the point is moot.

If you argue that God's will takes precedence over the laws of physics, then in fact there is no point in arguing -- since everything is already determined.

[quote]So we are to let our people die to keep allies?[/quote]

Nope. We DONT NEED ALLIES. But we also shouldn't let our people die to kill other people. We should follow the advice of the Founding Fathers: Friendship and peace, and honest trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

[quote]They were attacked on several occasions long before the arab nations of today were established.[/quote]

Yes... by the British.

[quote]If we were to launch a nuclear missile at them, they could launch many back in retalliation. That makes them a super power.[/quote]

By that logic, North Korea is a superpower.

[quote]No I didn't say weak, i said unstable. Their governments are so wishy-washy they cannot be trusted with nuclear arms.[/quote]

So is Russia's government. Terrorists will have a much easier time getting nukes from Russia than from North Korea. Putin doesn't even KNOW where all his nukes are, because he has so many of them.

[quote]Ok whatever that still doesnt make them any less of the threat they were to the US.[/quote]

Iraq was not harboring terrorists, but they were still a threat! What the hell? WE MADE THEM A THREAT. Even in 1991, they were a threat to Saudi Arabia, not us.

EVERY major terrorist attack against the US since 1989 was carried out by Saudis. Why? Because all our troops in the Mid East were in Saudi Arabia. The next wave of terrorist attacks will be coming from Iraqis.

[quote]I didn't say there weren't any greedy bastards in the republican party. I was saying they both liberals and closet socialistsin the democratic party are trying to make this country socialist. The liberals who don't believe they are making us into a socialist country are still supporting the party  financially and with face value giving the socialist party popular puppets to help sway the majority.[/quote]

That's completely false. The father of modern conservatism was a man by the name of Barry Goldwater. A lot of people said about him the same things you say about libaerls now -- that he increasd support for the Republican Party, thus empowering the "me-too" conservatives (people like Dubya).

Eventually, Goldwater won the Republican nomination, defeating the popular Rockefeller. When he was campaigning in California, he had so many volutneers, he created volunteers to tell other volunteers what to do. Goldwater took back the Republican Party. Now if Goldwater followed your logic and thought "well the Republicans are doomed anyway, so I better support the Democrats", then the Republican Party of today would be worshipping Benito Mussolini (in many ways, it is, but it'd be doing that even more so).

The same way, the Democratic Party is redeemable today, as is the Republican Party. But for that to happen, there needs to be a Liberal revolution against the Socailists -- just like there needs to be a Libertarian (liberal) revolution against Religious Nuts and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party (there are probably more 'liberals' in the classic sense of the word in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party). That's the only way things are going to change.

[quote]as of now we can still carry bibles of any type and can openly be any religion without direct government persecution. We are considerably more free than many countries.[/quote]

Definitely. We have a lot of religious freedom.

But do we have a lot of economic freedom? No. A lot of property rights? No. Free speech? No. Free use of our own bodies? No. Free association? Hell no.

We are still more free than most nations -- but that's because other nations are being repressed faster than we are, not because we are still a free country.

[sikdragon]

[quote]But since all reality is perception, oceans don't really exist. In fact, we are being invaded by Canadians right now -- you just don't see it.
[/quote]

Oceans dont exist??? people percieve them all the time through all of their senses.

And as for the canadian invasion, canadians aren't people.

[quote]Perverse is anything that is unnatural, right?

The natural purpose of sex is to have children. Therefore, ANY sexual lifestyle that has a purpose other than having children is perverse. Monogamy is technically a perverse sexual relationship -- since it is not necessary for the purpose of having children. So is celibacy. The only non-perverse sexual relationship is trying to have as much sex to produce as many children as possible.[/quote]

lol... that is where morality comes in.. when survival is no longer an issue it changes. Perverse is deviating from what is known morally right or good. Thus far what is right and good by the bible's standard is natural, not the naturally occuring things mind you.

[quote]You are making generalizations -- a lot of adults don't even have the mental capability to choose to have sex, but a lot of 15 year olds do.[/quote]

15 year olds are still under the jurisdiction and ownership of their parents. Child labor and other laws prevent minors from getting good jobs and entering into legal contracts without the consent of a parent or gaurdian.

[quote]So whoever has teh most guns is right?

Then you have no right to complain about terrorist attacks against Israel. If Arafat gets nuclear weapons and blows Tel Aviv into glass, then he would be perfectly justified according to yo -- after all, power is law.

In fact, if you argue that might makes right, it's hard to say that anyone has rights or entitlements at all -- which means that the fundamental basis of the law doesn't exist. If the ends justify the means, then law does not exist. (since the law addresses means, not ends). In that case, power is NOT law -- there IS no law. You have anarchy --> which is bad because it leads to chaos and warfare. The ONLY way we will ever get peace in Israel/Palestine is if the two sides get together and draft a common set of laws that derives from legitimacy, not power. BUT we must allow them to set their own course -- it's not our fight.
[/quote]

Might doesn't make right. It makes it lawful. There is a difference. The government can govern us with their laws because we lack the will and power to overthrow the government.

Ends does not justify the means.

We must differ on this subject. I do not believe in peace in the middle east. When the peace maker comes who can settle the Israeli/Palestinian differences the "peace" will only last for seven years. Then all hell will break loose, literally.

It is every persons right to fight against the palestinians.

If someone was beating the sh!t out of some guy on the street with a baseball bat and you had a gun tucked in the back of your pants, what would you do? Just watch as he gets beaten to death or turn your head? That is your suggestion here.

[quote]There is only ONE reality. People have different TAKES on it (i.e. perceptions), thus people SEE reality differently, but there is only ONE objective reality, which is what holds people together. It's why we percieve the same things.[/quote]

Do you know this for a fact? Do you know that my definition of blue is not your definition of red? Your parents could see orange when you point out green. They would never know and niether would you. When a girl sees red could a man see pink?

[quote]But that was STILL A TAX! A tax by any other name is still a tax. You're arguing semantics.
[/quote]


you were trying to prove the Bible fallacious due to this so called "contradiction" which in fact does not exist cover to cover. All 40 writers never contradict each other over hundreds of years. amazing.

[quote]Yes, I believe you are referring to Romans 13... which is another HUGE contradiction... if everyone is supposed to follow the laws of the land, why didn't Jesus worship Zeus? Why did the Jews complain about their slavery? Etc.[/quote]

The law is to be upheld until it makes you choose between God and the law. You must choose God if you are to do right by him. The Jews have fallen from the grace of God numerous times.

[quote]It WAS a surprise attack ... that's why it ended so quickly. Egypt's defense line was over 100 miles inland. If they knew about the attack, they would've defended closer to the border.
[/quote]

Just because they did not know where the Israelis would attack doesn't mean they didn't know an attack was going to happen.

[quote]"If it is God's will, it will happen" is a true statement.

Of course, it was not God's will so the point is moot.

If you argue that God's will takes precedence over the laws of physics, then in fact there is no point in arguing -- since everything is already determined.[/quote]

Amen. God created physics and can bend their laws.

[quote]Nope. We DONT NEED ALLIES. But we also shouldn't let our people die to kill other people. We should follow the advice of the Founding Fathers: Friendship and peace, and honest trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none.[/quote]


That would be great wouldn't it? Those same founding fathers fought wars against the British. Just because Iraq wasn't invading doesn't mean the safety of America's citizens was not in danger.

[quote]By that logic, North Korea is a superpower.[/quote]

ok is that a problem?

[quote]So is Russia's government. Terrorists will have a much easier time getting nukes from Russia than from North Korea. Putin doesn't even KNOW where all his nukes are, because he has so many of them.[/quote]
Putin is one leader and can be handled more easily rather than a counsel of a hundred or so princes all with different opinions.


[quote]Iraq was not harboring terrorists, but they were still a threat! What the hell? WE MADE THEM A THREAT. Even in 1991, they were a threat to Saudi Arabia, not us.

EVERY major terrorist attack against the US since 1989 was carried out by Saudis. Why? Because all our troops in the Mid East were in Saudi Arabia. The next wave of terrorist attacks will be coming from Iraqis.[/quote]

Iraq was still a threat because they have WMD's. Now they are wherever the convoys that left Baghdad parked in Syria.

[quote]That's completely false. The father of modern conservatism was a man by the name of Barry Goldwater. A lot of people said about him the same things you say about libaerls now -- that he increasd support for the Republican Party, thus empowering the "me-too" conservatives (people like Dubya).

Eventually, Goldwater won the Republican nomination, defeating the popular Rockefeller. When he was campaigning in California, he had so many volutneers, he created volunteers to tell other volunteers what to do. Goldwater took back the Republican Party. Now if Goldwater followed your logic and thought "well the Republicans are doomed anyway, so I better support the Democrats", then the Republican Party of today would be worshipping Benito Mussolini (in many ways, it is, but it'd be doing that even more so).

The same way, the Democratic Party is redeemable today, as is the Republican Party. But for that to happen, there needs to be a Liberal revolution against the Socailists -- just like there needs to be a Libertarian (liberal) revolution against Religious Nuts and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party (there are probably more 'liberals' in the classic sense of the word in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party). That's the only way things are going to change.
[/quote]


That does not support my logic and thought. I support republicans because they are for my interests and the interests of america regardless of those naysayers who do not know what they want.

As for the revolution against religious nuts well I, my good sir, will have to oppose.
Religious nuts are what make this world interesting.Without God life would suck. There would be no point in anyone surviving. There wouldn't be anyone keeping the presidents fingers off the nuke button.

[jarnifer]

what do you mean canadians aren't people???

[ComradeRed]

[quote]And as for the canadian invasion, canadians aren't people.[/quote]

Riiiiiiight.....

[quote]lol... that is where morality comes in.. when survival is no longer an issue it changes. Perverse is deviating from what is known morally right or good. Thus far what is right and good by the bible's standard is natural, not the naturally occuring things mind you.[/quote]

Who says the Bible's standard is neutral? You are simply invokign your moral stances -- which are NOT natural or universal, as can be clearly seen by teh fact that other people do not hold them.

For something to be natural, it must apply to ALL people.

ALL people can have babies if their anatomy is correct and have certain forms of sexual intercourse -- however not ALL people believe in the Bible.

[quote]15 year olds are still under the jurisdiction and ownership of their parents. Child labor and other laws prevent minors from getting good jobs and entering into legal contracts without the consent of a parent or gaurdian.[/quote]

Then should we give parents the right to decide whether their kids have sex?

[quote]Might doesn't make right. It makes it lawful. There is a difference. The government can govern us with their laws because we lack the will and power to overthrow the government.[/quote]

No it does not make it lawful.

If a robber breaks into your house and holds you hostage with a gun, he has MIGHT -- however, he does not have LAW. Similarly, if an illegitiamte (tyrannical) government decrees something -- it is not an effective law. It is a decree, just as the decree "give me your money" a robber would give you at gunpoint.

A law is something that everyone ought to obey equally. This does not happen in most governments.

[quote]We must differ on this subject. I do not believe in peace in the middle east. When the peace maker comes who can settle the Israeli/Palestinian differences the "peace" will only last for seven years. Then all hell will break loose, literally.[/quote]

I do not desire "peace" in the Middle East -- I desire for US to get out of the Middle East. Israel and Palestine can blow each other up all they want -- as long as none of the bombs are hitting New York City.

[quote]It is every persons right to fight against the palestinians.[/quote]

No, you only have a right to fight against people who have hurt you or are in the process of hurting you. Otherwise, you are committing aggression.

[quote]If someone was beating the sh!t out of some guy on the street with a baseball bat and you had a gun tucked in the back of your pants, what would you do? Just watch as he gets beaten to death or turn your head? That is your suggestion here.[/quote]

I would call the police. What if the person getting the sh*t beat out of him robbed the other guy first? What if that person killed hte other guy's family members? You don't know things like this. It is better not to get involved unless you have an interest in that party. IT is an especially good idea not to get involved if the person getting the sh*t beat out of him has a track record for robbing and pludering other people's houses and then attacking people who try to rescue him.

[quote]you were trying to prove the Bible fallacious due to this so called "contradiction" which in fact does not exist cover to cover. All 40 writers never contradict each other over hundreds of years. amazing.[/quote]

Yes they do... Any site will say that. TWO different dates are given for Jesus's birth. THREE different people are listed as fathers of St. Joseph.

[quote]Just because they did not know where the Israelis would attack doesn't mean they didn't know an attack was going to happen.[/quote]

There was only one place Israel COULD attack... an easily defended 15-mile-wide strip of desert.

[quote]Amen. God created physics and can bend their laws.[/quote]

So God does not have to follow his own laws.

Well, a governing authority that does not follow its own laws is usually called a Dictatorship. It is similiar to the Robber scenario I brought up before.

[quote]That would be great wouldn't it? Those same founding fathers fought wars against the British. Just because Iraq wasn't invading doesn't mean the safety of America's citizens was not in danger.[/quote]

British troops were IN our country, TAXING our citizens.

Do you see Iraqi tax collectors here?

If you are talking about the War of 1812, the British were inciting Indians along our fronteir to attack our towns. Iraq NEVER attacked us.

[quote]Putin is one leader and can be handled more easily rather than a counsel of a hundred or so princes all with different opinions.[/quote]

Saddam was one guy...

[quote]Iraq was still a threat because they have WMD's. Now they are wherever the convoys that left Baghdad parked in Syria.[/quote]

Unsubstantiated claim. We have found NO evidence of WMDs. Furthermore, Syria closed off the border with Iraq at the beginning of the war... the WMDs would not have been able to escape. Plus, we had 24-7 sattelite surveillance of ALL of Iraq. If the WMDs moved, we'd know about it.

[quote]That does not support my logic and thought. I support republicans because they are for my interests and the interests of america regardless of those naysayers who do not know what they want.[/quote]

"Republicans" are anything from Ron Paul to John McCain to Orrin Hatch. How can they ALL support your interests and the interests of America? Republicans have voted both FOR and AGAINST the War in Iraq. They have voted both FOR and AGAINST the PATRIOT Act. All Republicans are different.

[quote]As for the revolution against religious nuts well I, my good sir, will have to oppose.
Religious nuts are what make this world interesting.Without God life would suck. There would be no point in anyone surviving. There wouldn't be anyone keeping the presidents fingers off the nuke button.[/quote]

There would be the law keeping the President's fingers off the Nuke button.

There's a difference between BELIEVING IN GOD as a personal thing -- and being a religious nut, where you want to IMPOSE your beliefs on others. That is what people like Osama Bin Laden try to do.

[sikdragon]

[quote]Who says the Bible's standard is neutral? You are simply invokign your moral stances -- which are NOT natural or universal, as can be clearly seen by teh fact that other people do not hold them.

For something to be natural, it must apply to ALL people.

ALL people can have babies if their anatomy is correct and have certain forms of sexual intercourse -- however not ALL people believe in the Bible.[/quote]
They dont have to believe in it, the bible exists therefore it applies to all people because it is the highest authority on everything aside from God himself. Regardless of belief. Aren't you the one that said reality is independant from perception?

[quote]No it does not make it lawful.

If a robber breaks into your house and holds you hostage with a gun, he has MIGHT -- however, he does not have LAW. Similarly, if an illegitiamte (tyrannical) government decrees something -- it is not an effective law. It is a decree, just as the decree "give me your money" a robber would give you at gunpoint.

A law is something that everyone ought to obey equally. This does not happen in most governments.[/quote]

Dude you need to come up with some better examples, The robber has might but not more might than the government so he is commiting an illegal act. That government cannot issue an effective law unless that government is not contested in any way.



[quote]I do not desire "peace" in the Middle East -- I desire for US to get out of the Middle East. Israel and Palestine can blow each other up all they want -- as long as none of the bombs are hitting New York City.[/quote]

So your attitude is, if it doesn't affect me it is none of my business?

[quote]No, you only have a right to fight against people who have hurt you or are in the process of hurting you. Otherwise, you are committing aggression.[/quote]

Same as before. its not aggression if you stop the violence.

[quote]I would call the police. What if the person getting the sh*t beat out of him robbed the other guy first? What if that person killed hte other guy's family members? You don't know things like this. It is better not to get involved unless you have an interest in that party. IT is an especially good idea not to get involved if the person getting the sh*t beat out of him has a track record for robbing and pludering other people's houses and then attacking people who try to rescue him.[/quote]

So you have the guy with the bat arrested for beating up a guy that robbed him, yeah real nice.


[quote]Yes they do... Any site will say that. TWO different dates are given for Jesus's birth. THREE different people are listed as fathers of St. Joseph.[/quote]

buddy, those are sites not the real thing. anyone can put anything they want on the internet regardless of validity.


[quote]There was only one place Israel COULD attack... an easily defended 15-mile-wide strip of desert.[/quote]

So how the hell would it be a surprise?


[quote]So God does not have to follow his own laws.

Well, a governing authority that does not follow its own laws is usually called a Dictatorship. It is similiar to the Robber scenario I brought up before.[/quote]

Those aren't God's laws those are man made laws. He made physics and can change his creation.


[quote]British troops were IN our country, TAXING our citizens.

Do you see Iraqi tax collectors here?

If you are talking about the War of 1812, the British were inciting Indians along our fronteir to attack our towns. Iraq NEVER attacked us.[/quote]


Because we stopped Iraq before they could.


[quote]Saddam was one guy...[/quote]

Saddam was sadistic and had plans to attack the US. When you ask someone to do something for twelve years with threats and then dont hold up your end you look like you're just talkin sh*t. We weren't.


[quote]Unsubstantiated claim. We have found NO evidence of WMDs. Furthermore, Syria closed off the border with Iraq at the beginning of the war... the WMDs would not have been able to escape. Plus, we had 24-7 sattelite surveillance of ALL of Iraq. If the WMDs moved, we'd know about it.[/quote]


Hey, Iraq tested WMD's on the Kurds. The convoys left before we officially started operation bomb the hell outta your country.



[quote]"Republicans" are anything from Ron Paul to John McCain to Orrin Hatch. How can they ALL support your interests and the interests of America? Republicans have voted both FOR and AGAINST the War in Iraq. They have voted both FOR and AGAINST the PATRIOT Act. All Republicans are different.[/quote]


The party itself not the people in the party, the goals of the republican party are stumbling blocks in the path of the socialist party so they are good and support the interests of our country.


[quote]There would be the law keeping the President's fingers off the Nuke button.

There's a difference between BELIEVING IN GOD as a personal thing -- and being a religious nut, where you want to IMPOSE your beliefs on others. That is what people like Osama Bin Laden try to do. [/quote]


Law wouldnt keep the fingers off the buttons, laws are made by wars and fear of war.

Im still not gettin the religious nut thing.

[ComradeRed]

[quote]They dont have to believe in it, the bible exists therefore it applies to all people because it is the highest authority on everything aside from God himself. Regardless of belief. Aren't you the one that said reality is independant from perception?[/quote]

The Koran also exists ... does that make it the highest authority that applies to all people?

The Bible was written by human authors. "That God inspired the Bible" is a BELIEF that cannot be verified as reality.

[quote]Dude you need to come up with some better examples, The robber has might but not more might than the government so he is commiting an illegal act. That government cannot issue an effective law unless that government is not contested in any way.[/quote]

In a state of anarchy, is the robber then a government?

Or if the robber paid off the police, so the police doesn't go after the robber, is "give me all your money" now a law?

[quote]So your attitude is, if it doesn't affect me it is none of my business?[/quote]

That's right. If it doesn't harm me, I do not have the right to use violence to affect it.

[quote]Same as before. its not aggression if you stop the violence.[/quote]

Egypt didn't attack first ... aggerssion is when you use violence first.

[quote]buddy, those are sites not the real thing. anyone can put anything they want on the internet regardless of validity.[/quote]

Read the Bible itself then...

[quote]So how the hell would it be a surprise?[/quote]

Surprise or not, it was aggression... I can warn you that I will beat you up, and then attack you, and that doesn't make me right.

[quote]Those aren't God's laws those are man made laws. He made physics and can change his creation.[/quote]

We didn't "make" physics... we discovered it... Obviously, God "made" the laws of Physics -- and a good lawgiver Always follows his own laws.

[quote]Because we stopped Iraq before they could.[/quote]

THat's one of MANY possibilities ... we also created new terrorist cells that may have taken their nuclear weapons.

You are arguing from conjecture.

[quote]Saddam was sadistic and had plans to attack the US. When you ask someone to do something for twelve years with threats and then dont hold up your end you look like you're just talkin sh*t. We weren't.[/quote]

When did Saddam threaten to attack the US?

[quote]Hey, Iraq tested WMD's on the Kurds. The convoys left before we officially started operation bomb the hell outta your country.[/quote]

The Kurds were in revolt -- if we had nuclear bombs during the Civil War, you can bet Atlanta would be radioactive ash.

I'm not defending Saddam's use of WMDs -- but you have to realize that we would do the exact same thing, as we did to protestors in the 60s, and the South in the Civil War -- we should stop being so hypocritical. Freeodm here first, then we can complain about freedom in other countries.

[quote]The party itself not the people in the party, the goals of the republican party are stumbling blocks in the path of the socialist party so they are good and support the interests of our country.[/quote]

There is no socialist party...

Also the Republican Party platforms disagree with each other. Read the National Republican Party platform.

THen read the platform of the Republican Party of Texas -- which is anti-PATRIOT Act and anti-deficit.

The Republican Party is the big tent party -- they don't have a single belief.

Besides, the Republican Party's War in Iraq HELPED socialism -- this is EXTREMELY well-documented. Bush gave socialists all over the world a cause to unite around. Thus, socialists won elections in Romania, Spain, Lithuania, Germany, etc. FOR THE FIRST TIME in many years -- because the socialists had something to unite around. I hear David Cobb is becoming more popular here too.

[quote]Law wouldnt keep the fingers off the buttons, laws are made by wars and fear of war.[/quote]

Laws exist in peacetime...

In war, laws are usually suspended -- if laws were created because of war, why are they only followed in peace?

[quote]Im still not gettin the religious nut thing.[/quote]

A religious nut is somehow who uses religion as a substitute for reason and evidence. There is nothing wrong with religion per se, just when you overuse it.

[sikdragon]

[quote]
The Koran also exists ... does that make it the highest authority that applies to all people?

The Bible was written by human authors. "That God inspired the Bible" is a BELIEF that cannot be verified as reality.[/quote]

The Koran is flawed by its several contradictions. The Bible isn't, God inspired or not. It was and is God inspired.


[quote]In a state of anarchy, is the robber then a government?

Or if the robber paid off the police, so the police doesn't go after the robber, is "give me all your money" now a law?[/quote]


yes and yes.

"police dont go after the robber."


[quote]That's right. If it doesn't harm me, I do not have the right to use violence to affect it.
[/quote]

violence shouldnt be regarded as just not an answer but as a last resort.

[quote]Egypt didn't attack first ... aggerssion is when you use violence first.

[/quote]

What about provocation?


[quote]Read the Bible itself then...[/quote]

That's always good advice. Heed thine own words.


[quote]Surprise or not, it was aggression... I can warn you that I will beat you up, and then attack you, and that doesn't make me right.[/quote]

no it wasnt.
And your example doesnt prove anything, there actual circumstances are yet unspecified.



[quote]We didn't "make" physics... we discovered it... Obviously, God "made" the laws of Physics -- and a good lawgiver Always follows his own laws.[/quote]


God didn't make the laws of physics, he made physics and we accepted them as law.


[quote]THat's one of MANY possibilities ... we also created new terrorist cells that may have taken their nuclear weapons.

You are arguing from conjecture.[/quote]

Yes we have created terrorist cells. Not because of shock and awe or our capturing of Saddam. It is because congress and the american people are so divided when it comes to foreign policy there is fear of a civil war and the slaughtering of fruits and protestors, without them we can't have our cake and eat it too.


[quote]When did Saddam threaten to attack the US?[/quote]

Never orally to my knowledge and i never said he did. He hated us and was working on getting missiles that could reach us, do the math.

[quote]The Kurds were in revolt -- if we had nuclear bombs during the Civil War, you can bet Atlanta would be radioactive ash.

I'm not defending Saddam's use of WMDs -- but you have to realize that we would do the exact same thing, as we did to protestors in the 60s, and the South in the Civil War -- we should stop being so hypocritical. Freeodm here first, then we can complain about freedom in other countries.[/quote]

There is only black and white. You are trying to make a gray area by saying we would have, but we didn't. You can't use hypocrisies that haven't happened.

One step forward today with no step backs tommorow is a lot better than a hundred steps today and a thousand steps back tommorow.

[quote]There is no socialist party...

Also the Republican Party platforms disagree with each other. Read the National Republican Party platform.

THen read the platform of the Republican Party of Texas -- which is anti-PATRIOT Act and anti-deficit.

The Republican Party is the big tent party -- they don't have a single belief.

Besides, the Republican Party's War in Iraq HELPED socialism -- this is EXTREMELY well-documented. Bush gave socialists all over the world a cause to unite around. Thus, socialists won elections in Romania, Spain, Lithuania, Germany, etc. FOR THE FIRST TIME in many years -- because the socialists had something to unite around. I hear David Cobb is becoming more popular here too.[/quote]

There is a war coming it always has been. It didn't help socialism, it defined our enemy. As for the republican party, look at it like the bloodz and the cripz. The bloodz got the fire power but they aint got the man power to wipe them out. Tha bloodz ally wit all them other street gangs that hate the cripz too.


[quote]A religious nut is somehow who uses religion as a substitute for reason and evidence. There is nothing wrong with religion per se, just when you overuse it. [/quote]


over use it? I might be offended, i'm not sure.

[gerundio]

The Bible isn't, God inspired or not. It was and is God inspired.

And the tooth fairy is real...

[sikdragon]

What is the tooth fairy? I have a general idea but i would like to know your thoughts as to why it can be compared to God or his Word.

The incredulosity of that statement has set a new record of remedial ability in the non-comprehension of life as we know it.

[gerundio]

What is the tooth fairy? I have a general idea but i would like to know your thoughts as to why it can be compared to God or his Word.

It seems like my you misunderstood my post (AGAIN). My point was that the tooth fairy never existed, does not exist, and never will. In the same way, the Bible has never been God's "Word", is not right now, and never will be.

The incredulosity of that statement has set a new record of remedial ability in the non-comprehension of life as we know it.

Stop trying to use big words to make yourself look better. It's not working.

[sikdragon]

If you must deny God's existence to justify your life, so be it. But when the time comes he will be forced by his just nature to deny you.

Im not using big words to make myself look better. I am using them because i have just learned them and am trying to embed them into my conscious ability to better communicate my ideals and philosophies to better educate my peers.

[gerundio]

Im not using big words to make myself look better. I am using them because i have just learned them and am trying to embed them into my conscious ability to better communicate my ideals and philosophies to better educate my peers.

If you're so good with words, than how can you not know basic reading comprehension? Look at your response to my post:

If you must deny God's existence to justify your life, so be it. But when the time comes he will be forced by his just nature to deny you.

I never denied God's existence you moron. I said that the Bible is not God's words. Big difference.

[sikdragon]

how can you believe in God but not the bible? They are one and the same.

[gerundio]

how can you believe in God but not the bible? They are one and the same.

How dumb can you be? You're saying that God, a thing, a concept, a being, that we humans cannot understand is the same as a collection of stories created by humans? So , God = a book? WOW.

[Spirited Away]

If you must deny God's existence to justify your life, so be it. But when the time comes he will be forced by his just nature to deny you.

To deny happiness to good people is to love? Is "just"?

[gigiopolis]

And as for the canadian invasion, canadians aren't people.

Excuse me? We aren't people? Keep in mind; a lot of people think that practically every country's people dislike/hate the US, but Canada is pretty much loved by many. Why? How can two countries so close to each other have such drastically different reactions from other foreign lands? The reason is pretty clear now: Americans go around making stereotypes for everyone and discriminating against everyone except for their fellow Americans. They think they rule the world, and they boss people around. Like I said before, the only reason America has such a horrible reputation is because of people like YOU. I understand that not everyone in America is like YOU, because I'm not an idiot who goes around with their minds closed, pretending to be the boss of everyone. I understand that most people are actually very kind and caring, and don't make stupid assumptions.

Just because Canada doesn't exactly have the same amount of power that the US does, doesn't mean we aren't people.

I have no problem with you stating your arguments in a way that supports your opinion, but a senseless sentence like that is absolutely unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, anything that insults another group of people without proper reasons is just unacceptable.

Oceans dont exist??? people percieve them all the time through all of their senses.

And oceans don't exist. Oceans are just one huge body of water, but the first map-makers made names and created borders for these oceans to make their lives easier. Same goes with this question: what's the difference between an ocean and a sea? Well, there is no difference. Generally, a sea is smaller in size, but they are both alike and the same - bodies of water.

So , God = a book? WOW.

LOL!!

[Rachel]

a. your right i do think your a old fashioned right winged cowboy, also i think your an ass.
b. everyone has rights, that includes women and GAYS. open your mind to more than one kind of love.
c. also your poll answers blow. 2 out of the 4 are against america. the one that does support it doesnt give all sides of support. there are way more than 4 opinions on america.

[sikdragon]

How dumb can you be? You're saying that God, a thing, a concept, a being, that we humans cannot understand is the same as a collection of stories created by humans? So , God = a book? WOW. 

i can be pretty dumb at times, but it comes with the territory of being human.
The Bible is more than a collection of stories. The Bible is the only irrefutable record of his existence. We are all witnesses, don't let anyone tell you not to say nothin, you've all been pinched and life is a trial.

To deny happiness to good people is to love?  Is "just"?

number one, the thing you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as a good people. all have the blood of christ on their hands, he was innocent and died taking every sin that has ever been commited in the past present and future onto himself.

Excuse me? We aren't people? Keep in mind; a lot of people think that practically every country's people dislike/hate the US, but Canada is pretty much loved by many. Why? How can two countries so close to each other have such drastically different reactions from other foreign lands? The reason is pretty clear now: Americans go around making stereotypes for everyone and discriminating against everyone except for their fellow Americans. They think they rule the world, and they boss people around. Like I said before, the only reason America has such a horrible reputation is because of people like YOU. I understand that not everyone in America is like YOU, because I'm not an idiot who goes around with their minds closed, pretending to be the boss of everyone. I understand that most people are actually very kind and caring, and don't make stupid assumptions.

Just because Canada doesn't exactly have the same amount of power that the US does, doesn't mean we aren't people.

I have no problem with you stating your arguments in a way that supports your opinion, but a senseless sentence like that is absolutely unacceptable. As far as I'm concerned, anything that insults another group of people without proper reasons is just unacceptable.

Damn you people have no sense of humor. not you people as canadians, im talking about everyone who took that seriously.
and im not pretending to be a boss of everyone, im a servant delivering the truth. People like me? because i won't change my actions or views to appeal to others? If i did change my views like you suggest to make the world happy, that would make me a two faced and a liar. If i changed my beliefs as well for another imperfect human that would mean i would go with the flow and there would be one less fish swimming upstream and those that i would have touched would be going down stream just to keep the peace that we have now. Im sorry but to keep the other nations happy would be like writing our own suicide note. Without war there is no peace, without bombs there is no law. If we are loved we better like the reasons why. Most people are not kind and caring, why else must we keep our doors locked? If we aren't hated then there is something wrong with us. The rest of the world isn't in such a good shape, if so many countries are willing to support palestine and egypt in their hatred of Israel.

And oceans don't exist. Oceans are just one huge body of water, but the first map-makers made names and created borders for these oceans to make their lives easier. Same goes with this question: what's the difference between an ocean and a sea? Well, there is no difference. Generally, a sea is smaller in size, but they are both alike and the same - bodies of water.

Go to the beach at the edge of a land mass that is bigger than the land surrounding it. That right there is an ocean. seas dont surround land, they are surrounded by land.

LOL!!

lol

a. your right i do think your a old fashioned right winged cowboy, also i think your an ass.
b. everyone has rights, that includes women and GAYS. open your mind to more than one kind of love.
c. also your poll answers blow. 2 out of the 4 are against america. the one that does support it doesnt give all sides of support. there are way more than 4 opinions on america.

a. i get that a lot from people who are easily offended. and i think you are extremely shallow.
b. did i say they didnt have rights? im saying homosexuality is just like cleptomania not taking responsibility for your own actions and blaming it on a disease. women do have rights, but are the downfall of mankind, women don't belong in the work place because they think and work using emotion rather than logic. if they do learn logic it is like a second language. But if it wasnt for women all men would be disgusting and be no better than animals. Everyone is different, but there is only one kind of love and that is God.
c. that was the first time i ever made a poll and i wasnt trying to show every side of support i was just making that to make things more interesting, but i see it bothers you so i should take it off or wait i think there is a button for views not given... the null vote button.

[gerundio]

i can be pretty dumb at times, but it comes with the territory of being human.
The Bible is more than a collection of stories. The Bible is the only irrefutable record of his existence. We are all witnesses, don't let anyone tell you not to say nothin, you've all been pinched and life is a trial.

Maybe you are not dumb, but just a religious nut and fanatic.

[karrar]

silk dragon dont yap your mouth about the qur'an if you have know idea about it ..........do you know arabic have you read it ?..........go ahead and list your " contradictions" here.......

[gigiopolis]

Damn you people have no sense of humor. not you people as canadians, im talking about everyone who took that seriously.
and im not pretending to be a boss of everyone, im a servant delivering the truth. People like me? because i won't change my actions or views to appeal to others? If i did change my views like you suggest to make the world happy, that would make me a two faced and a liar. If i changed my beliefs as well for another imperfect human that would mean i would go with the flow and there would be one less fish swimming upstream and those that i would have touched would be going down stream just to keep the peace that we have now. Im sorry but to keep the other nations happy would be like writing our own suicide note. Without war there is no peace, without bombs there is no law. If we are loved we better like the reasons why. Most people are not kind and caring, why else must we keep our doors locked? If we aren't hated then there is something wrong with us. The rest of the world isn't in such a good shape, if so many countries are willing to support palestine and egypt in their hatred of Israel.




Go to the beach at the edge of a land mass that is bigger than the land surrounding it. That right there is an ocean. seas dont surround land, they are surrounded by land.

Um, well I didn't find it funny...=S I'm sure a whole bunch of people did though. I agree that Canada can't invade any country. I mean, c'mon. We speak two languages. Canada can't even unify their own language into ENGLISH. We are getting bossed around by Quebec, honestly. A country that can't invade parts of themselves can't invade other countries...

Go to the beach at the edge of a land mass that is bigger than the land surrounding it. That right there is an ocean. seas dont surround land, they are surrounded by land.

If you wanted to get really technical, then, no, that's not an ocean. It's a great big body of water. A sea is a body of water also. You could do the same test and both are bodies of water. Oceans and seas are are just names. And I realized, this whole ocean thing is going off topic, so...maybe we should stop talking about it? LOL.

[jarnifer]

just curious, did sikdragon name himself "debate section owner"? or the forum did?

[sikdragon]

do you want to contest it? Until someone can I will own all of you who post in here.

[gigiopolis]

sikdragon replies a lot. It doesn't mean that his opinions are always the ones that have the best backup. Gerundio, uninspiredfae, and especially ComradeRed have excellent reasons, albeit a lesser amount of posts. So sikdragon really can't "own" the debate section opinion-wise, but he can certainly "own" it post-quantity-wise.

[sikdragon]

what do you mean i dont have the best reasoning? Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my reasons aren't clear and well thought out. I dont own the debate section because i post a lot, it is because i have the most reasonably uncontestable opinions.

[tofumonzter]

no polling please. give evidence and prove your point.

[gigiopolis]

Whoooaaa sorry I didn't mean it that way BUT...

I'm not saying your reasoning is bad BUT...

There are people who have the equally sophisticated reasoning backing up their opinions. And you are just one of them. If you were to determine the person who "owned" then you'd need a majority to agree, not for you to just "declare" it. And just because you think you have the most reasonably uncontestable opinions, doesn't mean that other people think that way or that that statement is true.

Man, I thought you were familiar with debate...That you had to give reasons for your opinions and not just say something without adequate backup?

It doesn't mean that his opinions are always the ones that have the best backup.

See that? It means that SOME of your opinions have good backup. I didn't say that NONE of your opinions had good backup.

[sikdragon]

polling?

[jarnifer]

so he named himself as the debate section owner? interesting...

[gigiopolis]

LOL. Yes he did. Kind of sad actually. It would be more fair if there was a poll, I mean, honestly. Even if you won like by 90 percent and you think there's no point, at least you have bragging rights now. Now I just think you're egotistical.

[strice]

Whats wrong with our country is that we don't have siesta. really. maybe people wouldn't be so pissed off all the time.