# More from the "religion of Peace"



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sau...or-plotting-terrorist-attack-against-gw-bush/

WASHINGTON      (AP)  A young college student from *Saudi Arabia*  studying chemical  engineering in Texas purchased explosive chemicals  over the Internet as  part of a plan to hide bomb materials inside dolls  and baby carriages to  blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Dallas home  of former President  George W. Bush, the Justice Department said  Thursday.
 It is war  until the *infidels* leave defeated, the student wrote in online postings.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 24, 2011)

You racist a hole, this obviously hasSARCASM ANYONE?absolutely nothing to do with his religion...


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Truly, this means that all Muslims are violent and dangerous people.  I suggest genocide so they can never trouble us with their violent ways again.  WHO'S WITH ME??!?!?!


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

well, nice to know that you havnt changed at all.

there is a problem in the world

islam is that problem

it is producing fanatics left, right and center

do you deny it?


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it is producing fanatics left, right and center



so is christianity and many other religions out there.

Whats your point?


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

and moral relativism raises it's head.

1) no christianity isnt
2) no other religion really is either

there is no moral equality here, Islam is the problem, it produces fanatics, and it's fanatical followers are willing to cut off your head for God.

Last time i checked, Buddists were not flying planes into buildings.
or christians
or shintoists
or catholics
or mormans
or wiccans
or anyone else


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> 1) no christianity isnt
> 2) no other religion really is either


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> well, nice to know that you havnt changed at all.



Yep, still not an *******.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 24, 2011)

Denying the problem doesn't make it go away you know.  It's a serious issue and it doesn't become less serious because only a vanishingly tiny percentage of the Islamic 'faithful' are extremist nutjobs.

Mind you, you don't have to be an actual terrorist to prove that the way you want to organise your affairs doesn not fit in a 21st century 'Western' setting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12416394

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12248091


Just as with the discourse on immigration, being liberal minded and accomodating is a good thing but you have to watch that you don't 'good intention' youself out of the game.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> It's a serious issue and it doesn't become less serious because only a vanishingly tiny percentage of the Islamic 'faithful' are extremist nutjobs.



Actually, yes, that makes it quite a bit less serious.  If we start talking about a "vanishingly tiny percentage" of any group, then talking about that group at all becomes meaningless - because a "vanishingly tiny percentage" of _any _group will be sociopathic, have an aggressive disorder, be prone to violent outbursts or other similar conditions.  Far be it from me to contradict Twin Fist, but we get **** like this all the time from members of other religions.  In America alone in the past few years, there have been multiple attempted terrorist acts, and some successful, from groups apart from Islamic militants.  Of course, those people look like "us", so of course it's just one crazed individual and not the vanguard of an invading white, Christian army.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

lets say 1%, we know it is more, but lets just say it is only 1%

there are how many BILLION muslims?

lets say ONE billion, it is more, but lets just say it is one.

1% of a billion is 10 MILLION FANATICAL NUTBARKS

thats a metric **** load


Please list the last time 19 christians killed 3000 innocents

oh, you cant? then STHU about christians. We know you would LOVE IT if tehre were christian terrorists, but there aint any, not comparible to the numbers of wackjob muslims,

you friggin know it too, why wont you just admit the truth?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> lets say 1%, we know it is more, but lets just say it is only 1%
> 
> there are how many BILLION muslims?
> 
> ...



Oh please.  There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, about half of which were by muslims, 423 in 2000, 273 in 1998, etc.  If that's what 10 million people can accomplish, then clearly the vast majority of them are completely incompetent.



Twin Fist said:


> Please list the last time 19 christians killed 3000 innocents



List the last time any muslim terrorists managed to kill 3000 people in one attack - it's only happened once in the entire history of terrorism, Islamic or otherwise.  Several planned attacks by Christians were stopped this year, who were planning mass murder.  A few were successful, like Scott Roeder.  The Tamil Tigers have a Christian leader and plenty of Christian members - that organization invented suicide bombing.

While we're throwing around "you just know it" type nonsense, why won't you just admit that you don't like or are scared of muslims and will grasp at any straw to paint them as all the same?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> lets say 1%, we know it is more, but lets just say it is only 1%
> 
> there are how many BILLION muslims?
> 
> ...



Well ...  we can apply this "logic" across the board - why don't we, then?

A certain percentage of white males over the age of 30 committed violent crimes. So ... let's just admit it, white males are dangerous for the world and should be eliminated.

OR

A certain percentage of black males are gang members responsible for the deaths and injury to countless citizens across America, so ... clearly black males are the problem.

A certain percentage of women murder their own children, so ... let's just eliminate them.

Once a person goes to prison, they largely just learn how to be better criminals and if they are ever released, usually reoffend and go back to prison, so ... why not just kill all felons instead of housing them?

Most teens try some kind of illegal substance before they reach graduation age.  Let's just get rid of all teens.

Dogs that bite. Cats that scratch. Rodents that carry disease. 

Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, whites, blacks, North Koreans, communists, socialists, democrats, republicans, christians, muslims, buddhists, shintos (after all, they bombed Pearl Harbor, remember?)....

Aw, **** it, let's just bomb the **** outta the planet surface and kill everyone so there will never ever be another religion-inspired murder ever again?

That's what you'd have to do.

But you won't see that, will you?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

In the spirit of peace, I just want to say I fully support the destruction of the Earth and total annihilation of the Human Race...provided it is done by alien mutant robots from the planet Skaro.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In the spirit of peace, I just want to say I fully support the destruction of the Earth and total annihilation of the Human Race...provided it is done by alien mutant robots from the planet Skaro.



_Alien _mutant robots, huh?  Total destruction by good old-fashioned _American _mutant robots not good enough for you?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

Well....the Daleks are a _British_ invention....


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In the spirit of peace, I just want to say I fully support the destruction of the Earth and total annihilation of the Human Race...provided it is done by alien mutant robots from the planet Skaro.



Skaro doesn't follow the holy word of the prophet Carlin and all actions against them would be deemed Holy War. :uhyeah:


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

and all of this sarcastic **** wont change the simple fact that bad men, muslims, are trying to kill you, and they would gladly do so, given even half a chance.

you can poo poo the truth all you want to, but the truth is still the truth

ignoring a threat doesnt void the threat





shesulsa said:


> Well ...  we can apply this "logic" across the board - why don't we, then?
> 
> A certain percentage of white males over the age of 30 committed violent crimes. So ... let's just admit it, white males are dangerous for the world and should be eliminated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Darksoul (Feb 24, 2011)

-Oh please. I would never ignore a threat or an attack from a person, or group, claiming to be Muslim, but I have no reason to fear every person who is actually a Muslim. I do feel the need to buy more guns but thats pretty much to protect me from crazy right wingers. That threat is a lot closer to me than terrorist 'Muslims'.

Andrew

(Notice I didn't say all Republicans or Conservatives. Not everyone can be a moonbat.)


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and all of this sarcastic **** wont change the simple fact that bad men, muslims, are trying to kill you, and they would gladly do so, given even half a chance.
> 
> you can poo poo the truth all you want to, but the truth is still the truth
> 
> ignoring a threat doesnt void the threat



There are many, many bad men on this planet.  

If you call yourself a Christian, then you can be defined ... again, for the slow ones ... by the actions of Christian terrorists who blow up family planning and abortion clinics, kill doctors who perform abortions or pass out free birth control. You can be associated with people like Jim Jones, Westboro Baptist Church and every other Christian whacko who ever thought s/he was acting in the name of Christ Jesus and God the Father.  Hell, look at what happened in Ireland, for cryin' out loud.

Christians are a threat, too.  And you can go on ignoring THAT if you want.

The terrorist threat is from extremists - they could be affiliated with ANY faith on the planet (or even atheism), the bottom line is there are terrorists in every religion. These guys just happen to be extremely well-funded.

It's like the Pope and the RNC versus non-traditional Catholics.  Some Catholic sectors tolerate divorce in serious cases and birth control. So if the Pope were to declare holy war on every non-Catholic, is every Catholic evil in your book?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2011)

JIm Jones was not a right winger but, once again, a lefty who committed mass murder, I give you wikipedia:

While Jones always spoke of the social gospel's virtues, before the late 1960s Jones chose to conceal that his gospel was actually communism.[12] By the late 1960s, Jones began at least partially openly revealing in Temple sermons his "Apostolic Socialism" concept.[12] Specifically, "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment &#8212; socialism."[37] Jones often mixed those concepts, such as preaching that "If you're born in capitalist America, racist America, fascist America, then you're born in sin. But if you're born in socialism, you're not born in sin."[38]

Enough said?

And by the way, no mainstream christian denomination has ever approved of or supported the killing of abortion doctors. You would have to kill a lot more abortion doctors to catch up with even the fringe of muslim terrorists, so please, If you don't want to take the threat seriously, fine, but try to stop slinging the blame on other religions.

What is it with lefties and mass killings? And union violence? And name calling? and everything else they do?

Tamil Tigers, wikipedia:The *Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam* (Sinhala: &#3503;&#3545;&#3512;&#3517; &#3466;&#3517;&#3535;&#3512;&#3530; &#3520;&#3538;&#3512;&#3540;&#3482;&#3530;&#3501;&#3538; &#3482;&#3548;&#3495;&#3538; &#3523;&#3458;&#3520;&#3538;&#3504;&#3535;&#3505;&#3514;, ISO 15919: _demala &#299;l&#257;m vimukti ko&#7789;i sa&#7745;vidh&#257;naya_) (Tamil: &#2980;&#2990;&#3007;&#2996;&#3008;&#2996; &#2997;&#3007;&#2975;&#3009;&#2980;&#2994;&#3016;&#2986;&#3021; &#2986;&#3009;&#2994;&#3007;&#2965;&#2995;&#3021;, ISO 15919: _tami&#7739; &#299;&#7739;a vi&#7789;utalaip pulika&#7735;_; commonly known as the *LTTE* or the *Tamil Tigers*) was a separatist, socialist

that socialist thing comes up again.  More violence from another socialist group.  Hmmmm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

"_Use Live Ammunition_"


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

one's persons comment


really bob, you know better.

Georgia,
please tell me the last time christians killed 3000 people in one day as a political act of war....


YOU CANT CUZ CHRISTIANS DONT DO THAT ****, WHY CANT YOU JUST ADMIT THE TRUTH


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

and for the "slow ones"

the koran deals in absolutes and it says, absolutely to kill the infidel and force him to submit

JUST TODAY another muslim, NOT A CHRISTIAN A MUSLIM was arrested for tying to make a WMD for craps sake

the truth is biting you in the *** and you are going out of your way to deny reality


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> lets say 1%, we know it is more, but lets just say it is only 1%
> 
> there are how many BILLION muslims?
> 
> ...



Too tired to actually repost the full debunk.

Christian Terrorists: KKK, Hutaree, Randal Terry....there is a long, current list. I'm too tired to dig it up, again. It's posted here somewhere, but easily found on Google.


Now we can play a math game.
US Population, as per the 2010 Census: 308,745,538
Islam: A comprehensive 2009 demographic study of 232 countries and territories  reported that 23% of the global population or 1.57 billion people are  Muslims. (source wikipedia)

309M < 1.57B

1.57B / 309M = 5.08
Islamic population is 5x the total US population

Intelligence agencies with a clue suggest that the total number of serious Islamic extremists are around 10,000.  Much less than 1%.

"They" aren't out to kill "us".
Anyone who suggests such a thing is honestly too stupid to be allowed to vote and should probably be locked up for their own safety.

20 individuals, most of whom were here -legally- were responsible for 9/11. 

As to the Islamic world hating us, most of them don't give 2 ***** about us.  They are more concerned with their own issues. If Iraq hates us, it's more likely over the over 100,000+ of their people who were killed during the US occupation, and the resulting chaos that invasion and occupation caused them.  

"Aldawsari,  who was legally in the U.S. on a student visa," another legally here person...interesting to note that after 9/11, when the hijackers were identified as being Saudi, the Bush administration -increased- the number of visas for Saudis.

Bottom line here is this: It's not the religion, it's the people, and the larger the population the greater the number of asshats in it.   Christianity spent a few hundred years murdering, raping, stealing and otherwise being *******s.  Some still are...Wikipedia has entries for many.

Right now, the Mid East has more important things to worry about than the US...like seeing whose next to fall after Quadafi Duck gets plucked.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 24, 2011)

Bob you are being obtuse, and I know you know better

there were 20 guys on the ground, the total in on the 9/11 attack was most likely in the 100's

money guys, planners, etc

and comparing randel terry? to Al Qieda?

THATS stupid

a world wide network of terror groups versus ONE GUY and the 20 people he went to church with?

you medicated or something?

READ THE KORAN

it says it flat out

and look at the polls

85% of egyptians support shariah law

now add 2+2

you are in denial friend.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> one's persons comment
> 
> 
> really bob, you know better.
> ...



Can I have a time frame you'll accept?  
Can we go back over 1,000 years, or should we be more recent and only go back say, 20? years?

Because if we go way back there's the Crusades, forced conversions of the Mayan, Inca, Aztec, various US Native tribes, Inquisitions, forced conversions at gun point in Africa, South America, North America and SE Asia, etc.  Hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed "For Jesus".

Croatia's death camps in the 1940's run by Christians against non-Christians. 
Victims 300,000-600,000

Vietnam, 1950's. Christian death camps for non-converting Buddhists.
Victims 80,000 est.

Rwanda 1994. Clergy turned over thousands for slaughter, in many cases reportedly participated. Total victim count in the hundreds of thousands.

Would you like more? Is 1994 "too long ago to matter"? 

Millions have died under the sword, spear, gun and bomb of so called "Christian's", since the day a Roman Emperor stopped using followers of that faith as "lion chow".

It doesn't make Christianity a "hate faith".  Just one that some who hate follow.
Islam's the same. It's another faith, and how it's taught, how you -interpret- it, how you understand it, will mold your perception and actions.

To me, it's all superstitious claptrap.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 24, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob you are being obtuse, and I know you know better
> 
> there were 20 guys on the ground, the total in on the 9/11 attack was most likely in the 100's
> 
> ...


I have read it. I've read every major religions holy books at least twice in the last 25 or so years.  My interpretation is different than yours, and others I have discussed it with interpret it differently also.  I also don't care if 100% of Egyptians support shariah law, unless NY is suddenly going to be enforcing foreign laws. I also don't care if France bans whoopie cushions. Again, not my country, not my problem, not my concern.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 24, 2011)

Crazies come in all shapes sizes colors sexes and religions.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

the attempt to compare, today, in the modern age, the radical muslim terrorism to lone, isolated, unsupported abortion doctor killers, or to the other religions, specifically christianity makes no sense.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> one's persons comment
> 
> 
> really bob, you know better.
> ...



It's been a while. True. But Christians used to kill in the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, using Christianity as an excuse.

Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion?
You can basically say 'yes' and I will ask why Christianity is not a problem now if the problem is rooted in the religion.
If you say 'no' I will ask you why you think the problem is Islam and I will remind you that the IRA were Catholics. And various Christian sects committed genocides as recent as 20 years ago as Bob was kind enough to point out. Christian *DO* 'do that ****'.

Which is it?

Personally, I think -people- are the problem. They just use whatever religion they have as an excuse.
And I think that some people are just Islamophobe and no amount of rational argument is going to convince them that Islam as a religion is no better or worse than Christianity.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 25, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Of course, those people look like "us", so of course it's just one crazed individual and not the vanguard of an invading white, Christian army.


 
I'm not going to argue with a good deal of what you have to say on this topic but I think a point that bears due consideration is that as far as the 'expansionist' aims of the extremist Islamic sects are concerned they most sincerely are the vanguard of an invasion.

They have no interest in peaceful coexistence or compromise - you are either one of them or dead.

For now, the notion is ludicrous but give them enough time and they'll start making in-roads or cause a real shooting war.

As I've said before (and again in the past couple of days in fact) we know that the Christian faiths have been guilty of just the same.  But that is not the problem we face today and it certainly is not a reason to shrug off the real dangers.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> As I've said before (and again in the past couple of days in fact) we know that the Christian faiths have been guilty of just the same.  But that is not the problem we face today and it certainly is not a reason to shrug off the real dangers.



The problem still exists today.
Only they're mainly killing people in Africa for which we don't care so that's ok.

I agree that there is a problem. It is just not Islam per se, just as back then 'Christianity' was not a problem. There is a good part of the Islamic world with legitimate grudges against the west, and against the US in particular. A handful of enterprising scumbags is using Islam as a tool to get disenfranchised people to attack. If it wasn't Islam they had over there but Christianity, no doubt it would be Christian attackers.

I am not shrugging off the problem. I just think that if we get dogmatic about the reasons why they attack us, we'll never solve the problem.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 25, 2011)

I agree - you seem to have the ability to say what I mean at times, Bruno, especially when I don' t have the time to build a post properly :tup:.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have read it. I've read every major religions holy books at least twice in the last 25 or so years.  My interpretation is different than yours, and others I have discussed it with interpret it differently also.  I also don't care if 100% of Egyptians support shariah law, unless NY is suddenly going to be enforcing foreign laws. I also don't care if France bans whoopie cushions. Again, not my country, not my problem, not my concern.




yeah, not your country, not your problem

till they come here and kill your nieghbors.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2011)

The title of the thread is ironic, too, as Christ is known as the Prince of Peace.  

Any scripture is up for interpretation.  The Bible can be used to support any crackpot idea as can the Quran.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

and someone always trots out the crusades......which were a response to MUSLIM AGGRESSION and it was 500 YEARS AGO


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> The title of the thread is ironic, too, as Christ is known as the Prince of Peace.
> 
> Any scripture is up for interpretation.  The Bible can be used to support any crackpot idea as can the Quran.




the bible doesnt say "find anyone that doesnt think like you do and kill them"

the bible doesnt say to conquer the entire world and convert it by force

the bible doesnt say marry 6 year olds

there is no moral equivilency here, and your gymnastic convolutions trying to create some are a waste of time and effort


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> and someone always trots out the crusades......which were a response to MUSLIM AGGRESSION and it was 500 YEARS AGO



I guess Bob's right - there is no timeline you'll accept as factual. Dude, did you even *read* his post in its entirety?  I mean, it's getting laughable, friend.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> one's persons comment
> 
> 
> really bob, you know better.
> ...


 
Sabra and Shatila, Lebanon, 1982



> The *Sabra and Shatila massacre* took place in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war. Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese Phalangists while the camp was surrounded by Israeli forces.The exact number of victims is disputed, from 3,000 to 5,000 (depending on the source).


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 25, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> I guess Bob's right - there is no timeline you'll accept as factual. Dude, did you even *read* his post in its entirety?  I mean, it's getting laughable, friend.



Agreed. He picks out the one thing that is 500 years ago.
Ignores the examples that are only 2 decades ago, and which still exist today in Africa.

As for the crusades being about Islamic aggression...
Here is a hint: it was not Christian a region to begin with.
We wanted it and just slaughtered every man, woman and child who stood in the way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> the attempt to compare, today, in the modern  age, the radical muslim terrorism to lone, isolated, unsupported  abortion doctor killers, or to the other religions, specifically  christianity makes no sense.




Twin said this:


> Georgia,
> please tell me the last time christians killed 3000 people in one day as a political act of war....
> 
> 
> YOU CANT CUZ CHRISTIANS DONT DO THAT ****, WHY CANT YOU JUST ADMIT THE TRUTH


It makes perfect sense, unless you want to pick and choose facts, and ignore those that debunk your positions.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Sabra and Shatila, Lebanon, 1982



bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer, thanks for playing, that wasnt a terrorist attack, it was during a civil war. completely different situation, and you know it Jeff. Your own link"Following the assassination of Lebanese Christian President Bashir Gemayel" proves it isnt even a decent comparison


even for you, this was a lame comeback..


Bob,
you are just wrong on this one bro. Sorry to break it to ya. If you REALLY think that there isnt a muslim threat to america, and the world, then I dont know what world you live in where you cant see teh truth


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer, thanks for playing, that wasnt a terrorist attack, it was during a civil war. completely different situation, and you know it Jeff. Your own link"Following the assassination of Lebanese Christian President Bashir Gemayel" proves it isnt even a decent comparison
> 
> 
> even for you, this was a lame comeback..


 
I believe *your* exact words were "last time Christians killed 3,000 people in one day as a _*political act of war*"_

For* you, *this was a_ typically_ lame comeback.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between 9-11 and the Sabra/Shatila event?

seriously?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> are you seriously trying to draw a comparison between 9-11 and the Sabra/Shatila event?
> 
> seriously?


 
Christians killed 3,000-5,000 unarmed civilians in a refugee camp in a single day's "political  act of war," which is all the comparison you asked for. 

Seriously. :lol:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the bible doesnt say "find anyone that doesnt think like you do and kill them"
> 
> the bible doesnt say to conquer the entire world and convert it by force
> 
> ...



But it does say kill your kids, rape your mother, slaughter non virgins, orders death by stoning for out of wedlock sex (ooh sounds familiar), and lots more 'evil and nasty' stuff.
There's a lot of sick perverted sex in that Holiest of Holy Christian Books.  Cannibalism too. Incest. Lots of that. 

Wonder why so many priests are molesting altar boys...well, when you immerse yourself in smut all the time......

If you'd really really like me to spend some time shredding Christianity's book, I've got pages and pages of notes on it, but maybe reason can stand here instead, and we can accept that most people don't buy into those interpretations and can live by the good parts?  Same as Islam where the vast majority just want a better life now and a nice reward later.

Yes, the radical aspect is a valid concern. We need to be aware, and watch for it, and when it appears, deal with it, which is what was done in this particular case.   But I'm not going to worry myself sick, or work myself up into a bigoted blind rage over it.

Because 3,000 people died in 2001 from a terrorist attack in the US.
In 2001 there were 30,622 successful suicides in the US.(source)
In 2001 there were 90,863 rapes and 16,037 Murders in the US.  (source)
In 2001 41,673 auto related deaths. (source)


Math is a wonderful thing. It puts risk factors in perspective.
Unless you let blind hate and anger rule you.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Christians killed 3,000-5,000 unarmed civilians in a refugee camp in a single day's "political  act of war," which is all the comparison you asked for.
> 
> Seriously. :lol:




well, you aint changed none, even when you KNOW FULL WELL you are making a misleadign statment, you dont care as long as you think you get to score some BS point on someone.....

comparing a battle in a war to 9-11

wow


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Bob,
> you are just wrong on this one bro. Sorry to break it to ya. If you REALLY think that there isnt a muslim threat to america, and the world, then I dont know what world you live in where you cant see teh truth



John, I don't deny that.  I say it's not a big concern to me.  The Christian threat is more pressing, as they push their agenda of hate and bigotry to subvert things like the equal protections and rights clauses of the US Constitution, where they seek to force their religiously based views on the nation on such topics as homosexuality, abortion, and more. This is why I don't support the Constitution Party, who wants a Christian Theocracy established.  There are enough wack jobs already here, I don't need to worry about the ones 'over there'.

10,000 is a big number. But maybe the thing that needs to do isn't to just emit blind random hate like you seem to be doing here, and look at the root causes. Hint: The faith isn't it any more than Christian Faith is the root cause of my concerns.

It's people. Always people, who are scared, confused, misinformed, easily manipulated, desperate, or forced to acting irrationally.  Read the information about how a serious number of suicide bombers are forced to do it due to threats against their families, how they are lied to by the recruiters who tell them it's not a suicide run, etc. 

There's -always- threats to America. Says so in the news so I know to be afraid of all these boogymen.  If it was that bad, we'd have beachheads and a groundwar in this country.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Thats ok Bob, you dont have to worry about the threats out there

its like god, you dont have to believe in him, cuz he believes in you.

you aint gotta worry about the muslim nutbarks out there, but that doesnt change the fact that they are dreaming nightly of killing you


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> well, you aint changed none, even when you KNOW FULL WELL you are making a misleadign statment, you dont care as long as you think you get to score some BS point on someone.....
> 
> comparing a battle in a war to 9-11
> 
> wow


 
Battle?



> At one point, a militiaman's radioed question to his commander Hobeika about what to do with the women and children in the refugee camp was overheard by an Israeli officer, who heard Hobeika's reply: "_This is the last time you're going to ask me a question like that; *you know exactly what to do*_." Phalangist troops could be heard laughing in the background


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

yes, it was a battle during a war, your own link said so


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Thats ok Bob, you dont have to worry about the threats out there
> 
> its like god, you dont have to believe in him, cuz he believes in you.
> 
> you aint gotta worry about the muslim nutbarks out there, but that doesnt change the fact that they are dreaming nightly of killing you



I refuse to "let the terrorists win" by allowing them to terrorize me like they seem to have done to you. You're coming across here as stark ravingly terrified. Is that what you wish to project?

As to them "dreaming nightly of killing (me)", I highly doubt it.   I really don't think ol Osama's there in his cave looking at my picture tugging one out going "soon Mr. Hubbard, soon, my jihad will show you the might of Allah."


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> yes, it was a battle during a war, your own link said so


 

No it didn't, John-just because it took place during a war, doesn't amke it a "battle." It says it was a _massacre_, motivated by revenge, and perpetrated against unarmed men, _women and children_ by "*Christians*"

It was a war-*crime*.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No it didn't, John-just because it took place during a war, doesn't amke it a "battle." It says it was a _massacre_, motivated by revenge, and perpetrated against unarmed men, _women and children_ by "*Christians*"
> 
> It was a war-*crime*.




which is NOT the same as a terrorist attack Jeffy




Bob,
I have not been terrorized, i have been convinced. They have convinced me that they mean what they say, and that they are determined, and wholly unfettered with humanity or any other silly thing that keeps us from fighting back.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 25, 2011)

I know that this will interupt the flow of the thread but I just wanted to interject briefly that there is always the assumption that all those killed in the WTC were American (with a soto voce "Christians" tacked on).  That's not really so.  An overwhelming majority were but not all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Non-American_casualties

It is particularly those who died who were of the muslim faith that perhaps we should remark upon, as they represent a sign of the general disregard for all life promoted by the fugue of religious fervour the puppets of the heads of this sect foster:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/collateral-damage-630920.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> which is NOT the same as a terrorist attack Jeffy
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who is "they?
All Muslims, or the 10,000 fanatics?

Because if it was all of them, you'd already be dead.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> which is NOT the same as a terrorist attack Jeffy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

And again, I'll point out that you didn't say "terrorist attack," Johnny. You said "_political act of war_," and this qualifies.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> the bible doesnt say "find anyone that doesnt think like you do and kill them"
> 
> the bible doesnt say to conquer the entire world and convert it by force
> 
> ...


 

If you spent more time reding the ENTIRE Bible, and not selected texts, you would find little tidbits like Simeon and Reuben slaughtering all the men in an entire town after the rape of their sister. You would find G-d telling the Israelites to slaughter everybody, men, women and children when they enter the promised land. You would find that to this days Amalekites should be killed just for being Amalekites.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

<----- New testement guy here. Christian. Follower of Christ. Christ doesnt say to do that


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Who is "they?
> All Muslims, or the 10,000 fanatics?
> 
> Because if it was all of them, you'd already be dead.




more like 10 million, but for the 102nd time, there is no "all"


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> You would find that to this days Amalekites should be killed just for being Amalekites.



To be fair, the Amalekites are total douches.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> <----- New testement guy here. Christian. Follower of Christ. Christ doesnt say to do that



"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one  tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."  Matthew 5:18


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2011)

Well whaddaya know.... not all terrorists are Islamic... uh oh...some are of western Religious origin :uhoh: now whadda we do :anic:

List of designated terrorist organizations

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Terrorism Project

Domestic terrorism in the United States


And now I wait to be called a Racist again like I was the last time I posted this stuff


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> <----- New testement guy here. Christian. Follower of Christ. Christ doesnt say to do that



So, your bible doesn't have an "old testament" section?  It's never referenced, referred to, etc? You only read the "new part"?  

Just checking, before I unload 50+ pages of debunking, disapproval and refutation here.Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that _fable_ of Christ brought us!"

"Lazarus,", or as he was originally known in the Egyptian tale, "El-Azar-us" raised by the Sun God (Son of God)....

The idea that God can't forgive Man unless Man first kills Gods Son.
​But debunking isn't the purpose here.  

Hmm...treating women as inferiors who should know their place.  Paul had some thoughts on that.1 Timothy 2:1115 (American Standard Version):
11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:
15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
And 1 Corinthians 14:3435 (American Standard Version):
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not  permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also  saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands  at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.​Slavery. Lot of support for slavery there."Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve  them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; be like those who are  waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that  they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. Blessed  are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell  you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will  come and serve them. If he comes during the middle of the night, or  near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves. But know this:  if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming,  he* would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready,  for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour. Luke 12:35
​Of course, you aren't complete unless you honor BOTH Testaments. See, Jesus didn't negate the Old.

What were "His" words again?  Oh yes:Jesus says in Matthew 5:17,Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I  have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until  heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter,  will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever  breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do  the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever  does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of  heaven.


Paul also says, So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. (Romans 7:12).​Ah, but we need some murder, good old fashioned murder of the heathens.
Luke 19:26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone  who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even  what he has will be taken away."

Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over thembring them here and kill them in front of me." 

Romans 1:29 They have become filled with  every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of  envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 
Romans 1:30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 
Romans 1:31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 
Romans 1:32  Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things  deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also  approve of those who practice them.
​Now, if we accept the NT as the "Word of God", Jesus's existence as 'fact', and Christianity as 'legit'....seems to me it advocates much killing, murdering, robbing, and treating women as second class people.  

Interesting.

I await you negating all this by saying "it doesnt say hijack an airplane so it doesn't count".


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 25, 2011)

Hey, everybody...

Let's remember that The Study allows some more heated discussions but that's not a blanket permission to ignore the rules.  Name calling and personal insults or attacks still don't belong.

Keep the conversation friendly and oriented on facts, attacking the message and not the messenger.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I await you negating all this by saying "it doesnt say hijack an airplane so it doesn't count".


 
But it does say in the Book of Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21,  

 ...And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O LORD, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the LORD did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it." Amen.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Thats ok Bob, you dont have to worry about the threats out there
> 
> its like god, you dont have to believe in him, cuz he believes in you.
> 
> you aint gotta worry about the muslim nutbarks out there, but that doesnt change the fact that they are dreaming nightly of killing you



"They" - in this case being used by you - indicates all Muslims.  This is flat out wrong.  Just wrong. Admit it.



CanuckMA said:


> If you spent more time reding the ENTIRE Bible, and not selected texts, you would find little tidbits like Simeon and Reuben slaughtering all the men in an entire town after the rape of their sister. You would find G-d telling the Israelites to slaughter everybody, men, women and children when they enter the promised land. You would find that to this days Amalekites should be killed just for being Amalekites.



It's much easier to steal select passages (not even quoted directly) from a text one would refuse to read.



Twin Fist said:


> <----- New testement guy here. Christian. Follower of Christ. Christ doesnt say to do that



Wrong again - Christ said many think he was there to create new law but he (Christ) iterated very carefully that he was here to clarify and reaffirm God's covenant with man and to reinforce his laws for man; that the old law is not old, it is ALL God's law. Did you miss that part in your Evelyn Wood version of reading the Holy Scripture, New Testament Man?



Twin Fist said:


> more like 10 million, but for the 102nd time, there is no "all"



There isn't? But you said it is Muslims that are after us. By saying THOSE WORDS - you indicate it is all Muslims.  YOU said it, man.  Or are you going to skip around that one too? Or is that just my ignorant, lying liberal, feminazi eyes reading what you wrote wrongly? Perhaps we both have reading issues, eh?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

So....

Out of Curiosity....

1.7+ Billion Muslims out there.
Somewhere between 10,000 and 10,000,000 want to "kill me".

How can I tell them apart?

Really.

Because it's obvious I haven't a clue about how serious the "muslim threat" is, and others "know".

I'd like to know how to properly align my "Muslumdar" so I can easily pick these folks up in a crowd.

Better yet, better tell DHS and ICE and whoever it is issuing all those visa's to guys who try to buy explosives and hijack planes n stuff.

Because it seems some folks are so much better at telling who the bad guys are than the people who we're paying to do that.

Maybe we can pass a law requiring all Islamic Terrorists to register with the "Department of blowing **** up", add a 24 hour waiting period for bomb purchases, and make sure the TSA gets their knives on board.

Maybe, they can wear little uniforms with crescent moons on them?

Seriously.

How can I tell an evil fanatical Muslim from the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Xue, it looks like the ones that aren't islamic are some form of socialist organization.  Even the Irish Republican Army sided with the Nazis in ww2 and had, according to wikipedia a long connection to socialism and communism.  So the Irish "troubles" were not solely a religous problem.  Why do people have to always go back to the long ago past to site real, hard core religous persecution that is non-islamic in nature.  The religion causing real problems, right now, is radical islam.  You can talk about the inquisition, and other long ago christian violence, but everyone back then was really violent toward one another.  The difference, today, is that most religions at least tolerate other religions, except for the radical islamists who do not get along with anyone, anywhere.  Not way back when, but now.  The bible also might have outdated parts, with calls for violence, but really, who is actually carrying out violence in the name of christianity on any scale that compares with radical muslim terrorists, in both number of killings and the number of countries where the killings occur.  This is an almost global level of violence that effects just about everywhere but Japan and south america, and that is only because radical islam is too busy killing people elsewhere around the world to schedule anything in these other countries.  They will get around to south america and Japan once Sharia is in place everywhere else.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> But you said it is Muslims that are after us. By saying THOSE WORDS - you indicate it is all Muslims.




saying it doesnt make it so Georgia, you cannot tell me what i "really" mean. I know as a married chick you are used to being able to tell a man what to do...but that doesnt work with men you are not sleeping with!!


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Xue, it looks like the ones that aren't islamic are some form of socialist organization. .


 
Obsess much?? :lfao:


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> saying it doesnt make it so Georgia, you cannot tell me what i "really" mean. I know as a married chick you are used to being able to tell a man what to do...but that doesnt work with men you are not sleeping with!!



1.  I didn't say it ... YOU said it. If you don't want to be held accountable for your words, then shut up already.

2.  I know when you find yourself in a tight spot you like to hurl out the insults and cut people down personally.  Frankly, I just can't imagine how you found your way back into the Study. 

What exactly is it that you hope to accomplish by trying to berate me by using my gender and sexist stereotypical bias?  Are you all out of ammo?  Can't dispute the facts anymore?  Figure if you get my Irish up that I'LL be the one called on the carpet?  Is this you exposing the limits of your intelligence on the matter? Are you little more than a posterboy for the Dittohead generation?

Come on, man. You can do me better than that.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Pointing out lefty violence, well, I like to point out things when they are too hard to miss.  It doesn't make you curious, the connection of socialist theory with violent behavior? There also seems to be a predominance of radical muslim terrorist groups on that list.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 25, 2011)

*Folks, behave before the staff has to get all moderatory and lock the doors.
K?
Thanks.
*


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

This is an article that talks about our topic at hand. And a little something for Elder999 regarding my obsession.

http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/02/24/useful-idiots-then-and-now/2/ 

Why would a left-leaning young man from one of the world&#8217;s most secular and liberal countries choose to become a pious Muslim?
The 34-year old Swedish music teacher from Stockholm, who asked that his last name not be published, attempted to explain his decision, describing it as the culmination of a long journey searching for faith and him solidifying his religious beliefs that he couldn&#8217;t always place.
* * *​&#8220;I have never doubted my faith,&#8221; he told Babylon & Beyond while on a recent visit to Beirut. &#8220;It feels like I&#8217;ve had the same faith all the time but it feels so cleanly formulated in Islam.&#8221;
What&#8217;s the appeal? In part, Malcolm said, Islam fits in well with his left-wing views. *&#8220;In that sense, Islam fits me really well,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I am completely against capitalism."*

​


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Whats the appeal? In part, Malcolm said, Islam fits in well with his left-wing views. *In that sense, Islam fits me really well, he said. I am completely against capitalism."*


 

He needs to study:



> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"O believers, consume not your goods between you in falsehood, instead let there be trading by mutual consent.." Koran 4:29[/FONT]*


 
Did you know that there are entire classes of economic devices, like Islamic derivatives, mutual funds, and shariah rules on trade? These all exist so that _trade and capitalism can exist in the Islamic world._ Arabs love to dicker....I mean.....honestly. 

Is the House of Saud "completely against capitalism?" Or Iran? Or any of the other Gulf states? 

Was that young man "completely against capitalism" beacuse of his conversion to Islam, or because he was raised in a socialist paradise?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Whats the appeal? In part, Malcolm said, Islam fits in well with his left-wing views. *In that sense, Islam fits me really well, he said. I am completely against capitalism."*



"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." - Matthew 5:42

"So do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." - Matthew 6:31-33

"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep" Matthew 10:8-10

"Jesus answered, If you want to be  perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will  have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 
Then Jesus said to his disciples, I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.  Matthew 19:21-24


Uh oh, looks like all Christians are a bunch of socialists, and thus violent Nazis.


----------



## granfire (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> He needs to study:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Empty Hands said:


> "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." - Matthew 5:42
> 
> "So do not worry, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." - Matthew 6:31-33
> 
> ...



Are you guys poking fun of billi?


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Quote the bible, please, just don't miss the most important part of each of your quotes:

"...freely give."

Nothing about being coerced by the government or having the government take it from you.  Jesus, in each of your quotes is telling you to do it yourself.  He doesn't say, "Go to your neighbor and take what he has and give it to the poor, for that is the way to get to heaven."  He admonsishes the individual to do it on their own, of their own free will.

That is the farthest thing from socialism my friends.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Elder999, I hear what you are saying, but there is an interpretation problem with the radicals in the Islamic community that is making them dangerous.  They read the Koran and see it so differently from you and the others here on the study that they are causing problems all around the world.  What are your thoughts?  Today, not the middle ages, but today, very wealthy, well educated followers of Islam are interpreting their religion and engaging in killing innocent people.  How would you address this difference between you reading the Koran and their reading the Koran?


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

I would have to say that the ten commandments are one of the best capitalist rule systems you will ever find.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

It is hard for a rich man to get to heaven, Look at charlie sheen, and I would suggest, it is difficult for a poor man to get into heaven.   Temptation is more "tempting" at each end of the extremes of life.  For the rich, the vices and moral decay are there and easier to access.  For the poor, crime to overcome being poor is equally there, as well as the vices available to the poor.  Look at drug crimes and tell me it wouldn't be hard to stay virtuous when you have to steal every day to buy your drugs.  

Not all socialists are Nazis, they are German socialists, I think Jesus was jewish too.  also, Not all socialists are violent mass murderers, it just seems to be a tendency in the socialists that are really committed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

when i say "not all" you cannot turn around and tell me i said "all" 

deal with it

telling me i said something that i clearly and IN ENGLISH did not say just makes you look bad.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nothing about being coerced by the government or having the government take it from you.  Jesus, in each of your quotes is telling you to do it yourself.  He doesn't say, "Go to your neighbor and take what he has and give it to the poor, for that is the way to get to heaven."  He admonsishes the individual to do it on their own, of their own free will.
> 
> That is the farthest thing from socialism my friends.



"Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They  came to him and said, Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You  arent swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but  you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to  pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldnt we?But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. Why are you trying to trap me? he asked. Bring me a denarius and let me look at it. They brought the coin, and he asked them, Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?
Caesars, they replied. 
Then Jesus said to them, Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods.
And they were amazed at him."  Mark 12:13-17 



You're right granfire, it almost isn't even fair.  Like poking a child with a stick.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> when i say "not all" you cannot turn around and tell me i said "all"
> 
> deal with it
> 
> telling me i said something that i clearly and IN ENGLISH did not say just makes you look bad.


 

But...but... you did say all.... you may have put a not in front of it... but you still said all


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Xue, it looks like the ones that aren't islamic are some form of socialist organization.


 
aaa no... you may want to look at them a little closer... besides I'm not sure I'd call the groups like KKK Socialist (and I sure as HECK would not call them islamic) but if you want to call them socialist and if calling them socialist makes you feel better then go for it...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I would have to say that the ten commandments are one of the best capitalist rule systems you will ever find.


 

I had a new manager at the lab hold up the Bible at his first staff meeting and say to all of us, _"This is my management plan right here-these are the principles by which I guide my life and will direct this department."_ I don't know what his home and family life were like-except that he regularly attended one of the local Baptist churches with his wife and two smal children-but he *lied*, and *backstabbed*, and did terrible, terrible, *terrible* things.



			
				billcihak said:
			
		

> Not all socialists are Nazis, they are German socialists, I think Jesus was jewish too. also, Not all socialists are violent mass murderers, it just seems to be a tendency in the socialists that are really committed.


 
uh....what? There were mass murders in Sweden? There were violent mass murders in Israel? No, wait.....never mind. :lol:


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> there is a problem in the world
> 
> islam is that problem
> 
> ...





Twin Fist said:


> and moral relativism raises it's head.
> 
> 1) no christianity isnt
> 2) no other religion really is either
> ...





Twin Fist said:


> and all of this sarcastic **** wont change the simple fact that bad men, muslims, are trying to kill you, and they would gladly do so, given even half a chance.
> 
> you can poo poo the truth all you want to, but the truth is still the truth
> 
> ignoring a threat doesnt void the threat



Dude, that's like saying blacks are killing people with gang violence and that the problem is blacks. It's just not true.

To be accurate, you simply must say Muslim Terrorists if the terrorists are Muslim.  You would also have to say Christian terrorists or environmental terrorists if their tactics and/or affiliation can be better described by the modifier.

You are not logically incorrect when you say muslims are terrorists, but you INFER the problem is in the Muslim, rather than the terrorist.  It's simply incorrect.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Still not getting the socialism thing from your new quote.  Once again, Jesus didn't say, God, my father says take from others to give to the poor and you get to go to heaven. He is opting out of the government thing with your quote, not telling people to take from others.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, the KKK, a democrat organization, wanted the government to discriminate against people because of their race.  That isn't a conservative point of view or a free market capitalist point of view either.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

I said it was a tendency, Elder999, not an absolute.


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

Xue, looking at your list again, there are a lot, a lot of islamic terrorist groups, a lot of socialist groups, and a few without a specific clarification of political leanings, like the Sikh terrorist group.  Even the Irish groups had socialist or communist tendencies.


----------



## granfire (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Xue, looking at your list again, there are a lot, a lot of islamic terrorist groups, a lot of socialist groups, and a few without a specific clarification of political leanings, like the Sikh terrorist group.  Even the Irish groups had socialist or communist tendencies.



To you everybody who doesn't listen to 'Rush' has socialistic.communistic tendencies....


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

gran, attack the message, not the messenger


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

I keep putting you on the ignore list, but you keep dragging me back.  Only the ones who actually have the socialistic tendencies Granfire.  Now back you go.  I hope to be stronger next time.  You are Khan to my Captain Kirk.(I'll read your reply to this one, to be fair, and THen, back you go.)


----------



## granfire (Feb 25, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> gran, attack the message, not the messenger



LOL, kind of hard to lay off...since the messenger and his message...let's just say they stand too close together to make the aim stick.....

But you are certainly right, one should not feed the troll...


Ah, now that he has me on ignore! 

In any case, if everything goes back to 'but Rush said, and Stoessel wrote' or said or whatever, that this is communism....the message is exactly that: He thinks everybody who doesn't listen to those folks is a communist. It's the message...

Or Bigbollywood
big pajamas
bigcountry...

or whatever big website he frequents.

I should return the favor and ignore him right back I suppose....


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

And back you go.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 25, 2011)

granfire said:


> bigcountry...


ha


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 26, 2011)

Well that exchange actually had a benefit for me as it lead me to:

http://www.youtube.com/worldview/?utm_source=GDN&utm_medium=oa&utm_campaign=oa

I can't stand PM Cameron, typical lying Tory snake with slick training in presentation.  But this was a good idea on someones part - I shall have to look up other world leaders doing the same thing in this series.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, the KKK, a democrat organization, wanted the government to discriminate against people because of their race. That isn't a conservative point of view or a free market capitalist point of view either.


 
So, the democrats are far right? Because the KKK is and, with the exception of their first iteration in Reconstruction, always has been virulently anti-communist-like *you* :lol:  along with anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, and white supremacist. That first iteration was largely Democratic, but  the so-called second Klan, which grew in the Midwest during the Depression, was largely bipartisan-though in the south it remained Democratic.

The modern KKK is not just one organization, but several, and if members have an affilliation with a "mainstream" political party, and not one of the American Nazi parties, they are invariably Republican or Libertarian.....and, I'd gather, Tea Party members.

In short, the Klan you refer to as a "Democrat organization," no longer exists, any more than that Democratic Party exists-this isn't the Klan you're looking for, move along, move along.....


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

As an intelligent guy elder, the smear against the tea parties is just wrong headed. The racism you see today is coming mainly from the left and the tea parties are definitely not left. And once again, American or German, Nazis are socialists, Republicans, not the east coast type, but mainstream republicans are not socialists by any stretch of the imagination, and they are not even close to being nazis. When David Duke tried to run as a republican, he was kicked out. If you watch any of the video of the various gatherings of the tea party, the healthcare town halls or the latest gathering in wisconsin, the racial animosity is coming from the left, unions and democrat supporters.  the democrats also embrace their racists, the republicans do not.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Remember, the nazis were also anti-communist as well, but that was simply one group of socialists trying to supplant an earlier type of socialist. The kkk wants to use the power of the state to discriminate and deprive individuals of their rights. This is not a "right" position. conservatives are the ones who believe in individual rights, not based in race, and oppose the kind of large government that would be required to do what the democrat kkk would like to do.

an article on racism in the democrat party, and then back to the original thread for me.

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

*Andrew Cuomo:* Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).

*Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO*: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.

*Mary Frances Berry:* Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.

- *Lee P. Brown, *former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic voters


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> As an intelligent guy elder, the smear against the tea parties is just wrong headed. The racism you see today is coming mainly from the left and the tea parties are definitely not left. And once again, American or German, Nazis are socialists, Republicans, not the east coast type, but mainstream republicans are not socialists by any stretch of the imagination, and they are not even close to being nazis. When David Duke tried to run as a republican, he was kicked out. If you watch any of the video of the various gatherings of the tea party, the healthcare town halls or the latest gathering in wisconsin, the racial animosity is coming from the left, unions and democrat supporters. the democrats also embrace their racists, the republicans do not.


 
Oh, and David Duke was elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives as a *Republican.*

When he ran for the U.S. Senate-as a _Republican_-he got *45*% of the vote.

When he ran for Louisiana Governor-as a _Republican_, he got 55% of the white vote, and  38% of all votes-losing to another _Republican_...........

It's okay, though, I like to talk about things I know nothing about, too. :lfao:

Oh, here, this is for you: 







billcihak said:


> Remember, the nazis were also anti-communist as well, but that was simply one group of socialists trying to supplant an earlier type of socialist. The kkk wants to use the power of the state to discriminate and deprive individuals of their rights. This is not a "right" position. conservatives are the ones who believe in individual rights, not based in race, and oppose the kind of large government that would be required to do what the democrat kkk would like to do.
> 
> an article on racism in the democrat party, and then back to the original thread for me.
> 
> ...


 
Uhh...you do know that Cuomo *is* governor of NY, right? I clicked on the (source) link, and it came back as not available ...:



> Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.


 
....oh, and the mental hoops and gyrations you jump through to make all that is "bad" equal "socialist/left/liberal/Democrat" is rather absurd and tiring.:lol:


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

I don't know why the link didn't work for you elder, but it is working when I have checked it. Yeah, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York is a democrat.

Another piece from the article:

A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is to engage in what has come to be known as "playing the race card" but is more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader and hyper bigot Julian Bond's recent implication to his organization that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery. Amazingly, Bond's statements went without condemnation from the radical Democrat party or others in his organization.

Here is the link again:

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html It worked so maybe it was a temporary glitch.

From the huffington post:

Cuomo made a disastrous run for governor in 2002, sparking racial tension by challenging a well respected black Democrat, Carl McCall, for the nomination and offending many by suggesting that during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, then-Gov. George Pataki had done little more than hold New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's coat. Cuomo dropped out of the race a week before the primary

Hence, the idea that democrats embrace their slightly more racially insensitive members.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

This was from his first attempt at running for governor.

The attorney general, considered political roadkill after a disastrous 2002 gubernatorial run, stood beaming and blowing kisses before confirming the worst-kept secret in New York politics.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I don't know why the link didn't work for you elder, but it is working when I have checked it. Yeah, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York is a democrat.
> 
> Another piece from the article:
> 
> ...


 

Not a glitch-I clicked the sourcing in that article for the Andrew Cuomo story, and it came back with the message I posted. Additionally, John Ashcroft made comments in Southern Partisan magazine, to the effect that David Duke represented the "_American ideal_"; that slave-owners were concerned about the ""_peace and happiness" of slave families"_; that ethnic groups from outside of Northern Europe _"have no temperament for democracy"_; and that only "_Italians, Jews and Puerto Ricans_" live in New York, not "Americans." He also famously said in that magazine:

_Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."_

So, Julian Bond's comments, whatever they actually were, were not far from the truth,if not totally true.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Far from Republicans embracing Duke, as opposed to the democrats embracing their racists.

*1990 campaign for U.S. Senate*

In 1990, in the October 6 primary, Duke ran as a Republican against three Democrats including incumbent Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr.[38]
The Republican Party endorsed state Senator Ben Bagert of New Orleans, but national GOP officials anticipated that Bagert could not win and was fragmenting Johnston's support; so funding for Bagert's campaign was halted, and he dropped out two days before the election, though his name remained on the ballot.[39]
Duke's views prompted some of his critics (including Republicans) to form the Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism, which directed media attention to Duke's statements of hostility to blacks and Jews.[40]
Duke received 43.51 percent (607,391 votes) of the vote to Johnston's 53.93 percent (752,902 votes).[38]
In a 2006 editorial, Gideon Rachman (_The Economist_, the _Financial Times_) recalled interviewing Duke's campaign manager (from his 1990 campaign) who said, "The Jews just aren't a big issue in Louisiana. We keep telling David, stick to attacking the blacks. There's no point in going after the Jews, you just piss them off and nobody here cares about them anyway."[41]


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Again, not embracing Duke:

In 1988, Republican State Representative Charles Cusimano of Metairie resigned his District 89 seat to become a 24th Judicial District Court judge, and a special election was called early in 1989 to select a successor. Duke entered the race to succeed Cusimano and faced several opponents, including fellow Republicans, John Spier Treen, a brother of former Governor David C. Treen, Delton Charles, a school board member, and Roger F. Villere, Jr., who operates Villere's Florist in Metairie. Duke finished first in the primary with 3,995 votes (33.1 percent).[22] As no one received a majority of the vote in the first round, a runoff election was required between Duke and Treen, who polled 2,277 votes (18.9 percent) in the first round of balloting. John Treen's candidacy was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other notable Republicans,[23] as well as the Democrat Victor Bussie (president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO) and Edward J. Steimel (president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and former director of the "good government" think tank, the Public Affairs Research Council). Duke, however, hammered Treen on a statement the latter had made indicating a willingness to entertain higher property taxes, anathema in that suburban district.[24] Duke with 8,459 votes (50.7 percent) defeated Treen, who polled 8,232 votes (49.3 percent).[25] He served in the House from 1990 until 1992.[26]


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm looking at some excerpts from that magazine and I don't believe that all of those quotes belong to Ashcroft, if any of them, outside of the Rober E. Lee quote. Still checking.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.185/pub_detail.asp On the article you mentined,

_Southern Partisan_ has been described, correctly, as a magazine that defends the South in the Civil War. But Ashcroft has just pointed out that "liberty" &#8212; not slavery &#8212; was "at the core" of the founding, and that Washington was not a racist. His praise of the three Confederate leaders, therefore, must be taken in context as respect for men of honor and talent, but in no way for the pro-slavery policies of the Old South.

In the quotation above, Ashcroft worries that revisionists will teach our children that "these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

This language is telling. It is a clear reference to the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders "pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The "perverted agenda" to which Ashcroft alludes is the political ideology of pro-slavery, which he is utterly rejecting here.

In this tactful way, Ashcroft is actually criticizing the Confederate cause, insofar as it was the cause of slavery, with the words of the Declaration.




Frustrated by the absence of any real dirt on Sen. John Ashcroft, his ideological opponents have descended into dishonesty and distortion. He is being attacked as a racist and a defender of slavery. Ashcroft's 1998 interview with _Southern Partisan_ magazine has been denounced with particular venom.

In that interview, Ashcroft expresses not the slightest support for slavery or racism. Quite the opposite. In a passage ignored by the major media, he speaks indignantly against "revisionists" who have falsely attempted to turn America's Founders into defenders of slavery. Here is the full quotation:
Revisionism is a threat to the respect that Americans have for their freedoms and liberty that was at the core of those who founded this country, and when we see George Washington, the founder of our country, called a racist, that is just total revisionist nonsense, a diatribe against the values of America. Have you read Thomas West's book _Vindicating the Founders_?

Interviewer: I've met Professor West, and I read one of his earlier books, but not that one.

Ashcroft: I wish I had another copy: I'd send it to you. I gave it away to a newspaper editor. West virtually disassembles all of these malicious attacks the revisionists have brought against our founders.​


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

"Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, 'Where are the Americans?' for I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans."--Patrick Brophy, Second Quarter/1991 

NOT JOHN ASHCROFT'S STATEMENT(caps just for emphasis, not shouting)

The above statements that you seem to be attributing to ashcroft are not in fact his statements but from the magazine. Not thorough research. The comments about Robert E. Lee are clarified above in the previous post.


"Slave owners . . . did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness."--First Quarter/1996

NOT ASHCROFT'S STATEMENT, but from the magazine.


Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.) asked Ashcroft to respond to a series of quotes from the magazine, each of which had appeared in FAIR's January 12 media advisory on Ashcroft and *Southern Partisan*. The statements included claims that David Duke represented the "American ideal"; that slave-owners were concerned about the "peace and happiness" of slave families; that ethnic groups from outside of Northern Europe "have no temperament for democracy"; and that only "Italians, Jews and Puerto Ricans" live in New York, not "Americans." 
In response to this questioning, Ashcroft responded: "On the magazine, frankly, I can't say that I knew very much at all about the magazine. I've given magazine interviews to lots of people. *Mother Jones* has interviewed me. I don't know if I've ever read the magazine or seen it. It doesn't mean I endorse the views of magazines. It's a telephone interview. And I regret that speaking to them is being used to imply that I agree with their views." 
Of course, it is not his speaking with *Southern Partisan* that implies that he agrees with its ideas, but his telling the magazine: "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Gen. Robert E.] Lee, [Gen. Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate president Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." Presumably, he did not make a similar statement to *Mother Jones*. Given several chances to explicitly distance himself from *Southern Partisan*, Ashcroft declined, saying carefully, "I condemn those things which are condemnable." When asked directly whether he thought the magazine was racist, he said, "I should probably do more due diligence on it. I know they've been accused of being racist.... I would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely accuse someone of being a racist." 

At no point do I see jphn ashcroft making any statement other than the one about Robert E. Lee, the others essentially come from the magazine and seem to have been falsely and partisanly attributed to John Ashcroft.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

This language is telling. It is a clear reference to the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders "pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." The "perverted agenda" to which Ashcroft alludes is the political ideology of pro-slavery, which he is utterly rejecting here.

In this tactful way, Ashcroft is actually criticizing the Confederate cause, insofar as it was the cause of slavery, with the words of the Declaration


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Again, not embracing Duke:


 
I'd say winning the election was embrace enough, from people who called themselves 

*REPUBLICANS.*



Oh, and you were right about the Ashcroft "quotes," but his interview in the magazine and subtle endorsement of "southern pride" would be enough for lots of black people to say he endorsed the Confederacy and slavery, especially given the magazine's content. 

In fact, I'd say that of the two, denying that David Duke getting elected as a Republican wasn't "embracing Duke," was the larger.....:lol:

back on topic, though, do you really think that Islamic fundamentalism is left wing/socialist/ not conservative/not right wing?


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 26, 2011)

the PARTY shunned him, even if the voters didnt. Thats worth noting.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 26, 2011)

interesting thought.

the islamic fanatics are right wing, if you took a republican, brain washed him, gave them "religious steroids" and multiplied the result by about 10K

it is such an exageration of the "american" right that it really isnt even the same genus


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Last on Ashcroft:  Is John Aschcroft a racist, definitely no.  He suffered from poor vetting of the magazine by his "people" which almost all politicians fall for in the busy lives they lead, on campaign or in office.

I first heard about Ashcroft during the Bush-gore debate(?) when Mel carnahan's plan crashed on the way to the debate.  Carnahan and I believe his son were both killed in the crash.  His name was on the ballot already against John Ashcroft so essentially, John Ashcroft had no opponent.  The democrat governor, who ignored the state law that said you had to be a resident to hold elected office, I don't think being in a cemetery plot counts, told the democrat voters, if you elect dead Mel, I will appoint his wife for his term.  Dead mel won and He appointed Mrs. Carnahan to the seat.  Now, Ashcroft had every legal opinion on his side and could have fought the election to the supreme court.  Ashcroft refused saying, I think Mrs. Carnahan has been through enough,  she took the seat unopposed by Ashcroft. 

When Ashcroft was being confirmed to be the attorney general, Mrs. Carnahan was asked if she would endorse Mr. Ashcroft.  You might expect, one good turn deserves another, but you would be wrong.  Mrs. Carnahan refused to support John Ashcroft, in another show of democrat rudeness and politcs over decency.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

I think radical islam has more in common with socialism than conservativism, religous side not withstanding, because it believes in a big government, religously controlled, controlling every aspect of the lives of the people. Conservatives, who believe in the bill of rights, and the constitution, which are directly in contradiction with Sharia, believe in 1) religous freedom, no state controlled religion for example, for one, Islam does not believe in this, Islam will be the religion of the state, and any others will at a minimum recieve dhimmi status, 2)individual rights, islam believes in submission, and 3) free market captialism, which, once again, the radical muslims do not believe in.

The top down government model, and antaganism to individual rights would put radical islam more in line with socialism than capitalism or conservatism.

Even Jesus acknowledged a seperation of church and state, radical islam doesn't.  

I would say radical islam is collectivist in nature, conservatism is not.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I think


 
No, you *don't*.



billcihak said:


> Conservatives, who believe in the bill of rights, and the constitution, which are directly in contradiction with Sharia, believe in 1) religous freedom, no state controlled religion for example, for one, Islam does not believe in this, Islam will be the religion of the state, and any others will at a minimum recieve dhimmi status, 2)individual rights, islam believes in submission, and 3) free market captialism, which, once again, the radical muslims do not believe in.
> 
> The top down government model, and antaganism to individual rights would put radical islam more in line with socialism than capitalism or conservatism.


 
Once again, please look to a broader definition of what "conservative" means. Recognize that it can be applied to other political schools besides the American one of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and free market capitalism. From the very excellent MErriam Webster English Language Technical Manual (that's engineerspeakk for _dictionary_, bill):



> *con·ser·va·tism*
> 
> _noun_ \k&#601;n-&#712;s&#601;r-v&#601;-&#716;ti-z&#601;m\
> *Definition of CONSERVATISM*
> ...


 
With that in mind, one can easily recognize that almost all _fundamentalisms_ are de facto forms of conservatism, and that Islamic fundamentalism is a form of conservatism-that there could even be, in spite of the seeming contradiction within the _American_political system, socialist or communist conservatives.

please.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 26, 2011)

Jeff, you just ad hom'd


----------



## elder999 (Feb 26, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Jeff, you just ad hom'd


 
No, it was *an outright attack*, and the truth: to me, at any rate, he hasn't demonstrated _thought_; he has only parroted the often faulty (_the first Thanksgiving demonstrates the failure of socialism_?)thoughts of others.

I'll take the hit, though......it's *worth* it.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22626

from this comes a description of the "right" hang on while I get it

some of it:
The biggest mistake that has been made by psychologists (e.g. Altemeyer 1981 & 1988) and others, however, is to identify conservative motivation with opposition to change. Obviously, from Cromwell to Reagan and Thatcher, change has never bothered "conservatives" one bit &#8212; but preservation of their rights and liberties from governments that would take those rights and liberties away always has. THAT is what has always made a "conservative" &#8212; and it still does. 

It might be noted, however, that, centuries earlier, the parliamentary leaders of England &#8212; led by Fairfax, Cromwell etc. &#8212; did something similar to the Hispanic generals of the 20th century. Faced by an attempt on the part of the Stuart tyrant to abrogate their traditional rights, powers and liberties, they resorted to military means to overthrow the threat. There is no reason to argue that democracy cannot or must not use military means to defend itself or that Leftists or anyone else must be granted exclusive rights to the use of force and violence. 

A Conservative Revolution 
And the parliamentarians who were responsible for beheading King Charles I in 1649 were perfectly articulate about why. They felt that Charles had attempted to destroy the ancient English governmental system or "constitution" and that he had tried to take away important rights and individual liberties that the English had always enjoyed &#8212; liberty from the arbitrary power of Kings, a right to representation in important decisions and a system of counterbalanced and competing powers rather than an all-powerful central government. It is to them that we can look for the first systematic statements of conservative ideals &#8212; ideals that persevere to this day. And they were both conservatives (wishing to conserve traditional rights and arrangements) and revolutionaries! 
So right back in the 17th century we had the apparent paradox of "conservatives" (the parliamentary leaders &#8212; later to be referred to as "Whigs") being prepared to undertake most radical change (deposing monarchy) in order to restore treasured traditional rights and liberties and to rein in overweening governmental power. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not at all breakaways from the conservatism of the past. They had very early and even more determined predecessors. Nobody who knew history should have been surprised by the Reagan/Thatcher "revolution". And it was in deliberate tribute to the parliamentarians of Cromwell's day and their immediate successors that two of the most influential conservative theorists prior to Reagan and Thatcher both described themselves as "Old Whigs" &#8212; Burke (1790) and Hayek (1944). Hayek described Whig ideals as "the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power" (Hayek, 1960).

The conservatism I am referring to is the modern day American conservative position of supporting individual liberty, the bill of rights, the American constitution, racial equality, freedom of religion, speech...


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

The biggest mistake that has been made by psychologists (e.g. Altemeyer 1981 & 1988) and others, however, is to identify conservative motivation with opposition to change. Obviously, from Cromwell to Reagan and Thatcher, change has never bothered "conservatives" one bit &#8212; but preservation of their rights and liberties from governments that would take those rights and liberties away always has. THAT is what has always made a "conservative" &#8212; and it still does.

I believe that the goal of radical islam is to "take away" the rights of individuals,

-to worship as they please
-the rights of homosexuals to live
-the rights of women to "feel sunlight on their faces"
-the right to a seperation of church and state...


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 26, 2011)

Where has this absurd notion that the Nazi's were socialists popped up from?  Surely not just because they used the word in the title of the party?

Last time I looked they were Fascists; totalitarian, suppressive of opposition and corporatist you know, a bit like Republicans .

Now there is an argument that can be made that Soviet Russia was fascist rather than communist but to try and argue that fascism is left rather than right wing is a novel turn in the field of political definitions.

A clean definition of fascism that I've seen is "A political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based  on centralized government, government control of business, repression  of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or  religion above individual rights"

I am sure that there are some elements in there might be seized upon to prove that the fascism==left wing view is the correct one.  However, if you equate fascism with socialism then what you are showing is a deficiency in political understanding rather than an actual connection.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Sukerkin, with respect, I would go into this but I guess we would need another thread to really sink into it.  Yes. Nazis were socialists, and facism and nazism and communism are all different types of socialism.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 26, 2011)

Aye, you're right it is a deflection of the thread - my apologies.  It just leapt out and ambushed me when I was browsing through and my fingers trembled into life .

So I shall not add any more to the diversion.  Please, just read some actual political studies rather than repeat from the manual of the 'party faithful'.  Wiki is not the best source in and of itself but it can lead you to reliable references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/socialism-vs-fascism.html


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

to save me time, you could look up my other, quite substantial posts on the topic of nazism, fascism, and communism. There is a lot of it and I stand by it. I have strayed a little in this thread and don't want to get moderater attention anymore than I may have already.  I look forward to a friendly discussion with you, on the topic.


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Sukerkin, I will meet you on the field of your choosing, seconds are not required and I will respond when I have time.  good fortune to you.


----------



## granfire (Feb 26, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Where has this absurd notion that the Nazi's were socialists popped up from?  Surely not just because they used the word in the title of the party?
> 
> Last time I looked they were Fascists; totalitarian, suppressive of opposition and corporatist you know, a bit like Republicans .
> 
> ...




LOL, awe, now where have you been these past 4 month?


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

the bliss of ignore lists.


----------



## MJS (Feb 26, 2011)

Folks,

Can we have some civil discussion here please.  We have 2 reported posts already.  I'd like to avoid anymore.

Thanks.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 26, 2011)

Bill and his socialists....


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Hi blade 96, how are you doing?


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Hi blade 96, how are you doing?



i'm fine and how are you?

I'm just giggling like a schoolgirl everytime you bring your socialists into a thread cause they seem to be your favorite topic hehehe  I just find it funny.  and cute...you seem to like your socialists hah


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 27, 2011)

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how I can tell the bad 10M Muslims from the 1.69B good Muslims.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

thats just it, it isnt easy. They could live here for YEARS and you would never know what they truely felt, since their book tells them that it is ok to lie to an infidel since they dont count as human anyway....

only smart thing you can do is stop ignoring the threat and look at the world through wise eyes


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 27, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Still waiting for someone to explain to me how I can tell the bad 10M Muslims from the 1.69B good Muslims.


 
The same way you can tell the bad Christians from the good, the bad Jainists from the good, the bad men from the good men and the bad bacon from the good. 

Oh waitthere is no such thing as bad bacon, all bacon is good!


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 27, 2011)

Same way you tell the good priests from the bad priests, the good men from the bad men, the good kids from the bad kids, the good dogs from the bad dogs, etcetera.

[sarcasm]Kill them all and let God sort them out.[/sarcasm]


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

extreemist sarcastic exaggeration much?

get a grip


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> extreemist sarcastic exaggeration much?
> 
> get a grip



So what do you propose as a course of action, John? Since all Muslims are Da Debol?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 27, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> [sarcasm]Kill them all and let God sort them out.[/sarcasm]


 
The supposed origin of that phrase is quite apropos, actually:



> According to the Cistercian writer Caesar of Heisterbach, one of the leaders of the Crusader army, at the siege of Béziers in 1209, when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the Cathars from the Catholics, Arnaud Amalric answered:
> _Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius_ (*Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His*.).
> This is the origin of the modern phrase, "_*Kill them all and let God sort them out*_."



:lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

once again, for the slow learners,
at worst, what i said could be summed up as "all are POTENTIAL fanatics"

and thats fair. in light of how many muslims have been caught trying to kill infidels that were by all outward appearances not radical.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> once again, for the slow learners,
> at worst, what i said could be summed up as "all are POTENTIAL fanatics"
> 
> and thats fair. in light of how many muslims have been caught trying to kill infidels that were by all outward appearances not radical.



Okay ... you use the term "Muslims" in place of "terrorists" and point out that it is Muslims who are taught to kill the infidel, then you back off your position by saying what you said above.

So here's the deal, John:

1. You try to shove your opinion down everyone's throats using tactics such as calling people liars, slow-learners and even trying to demean them based on gender-based stereotyping if they don't agree with your position.

2. The opinions you state, such as this one, don't have a basis in reality, rather your idealization of a group based on religion and race, ergo, you are a hate-monger. When this is pointed out to you, you go to tactic #1.

3. You sometimes come to some ******** cop-out like the one above when it is SO obviously NOT what you were trying to purport earlier.  It would be one thing if you were to just graciously admit you were either a. wrong or b. being stone-headed, but you're not.

You. Are. Not. Worth. Debating. Any. Longer.

And I won't do it.

IGNORE


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

good


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

I will even go further, all christians are potential clinic bombers. but the odds are MUCH less since christians dont go around blowing **** up as often as muslims do

all dogs are potential biters, though by the numbers, collies are safer than chihuahua's. Course the bite of a chihuahua isnt often life threatening

all posters on MT have the potential to go off on histrionics and outright lie about what people say, but some are more likely to do so than others....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> thats just it, it isnt easy. They could live here for YEARS and you would never know what they truely felt, since their book tells them that it is ok to lie to an infidel since they dont count as human anyway....
> 
> only smart thing you can do is stop ignoring the threat and look at the world through wise eyes


And those "wise eyes" say what?

treat every Muslim like a potential terrorist, despite the fact that so few of them are a real risk?

Tell me John.  When I  walk down the street, how can I tell a Muslim from say, a Jew?

Because I want to know which one to protect my *** from, and which one my wallet from.

I suppose I could ask them, call the cops all the time, have back ground checks done before I buy my produce (in case they snuck some poison in there you know).

But see, I really can't tell who they are.

Why can't we make it easier, require them to wear uniforms or carry signs or get tattoos of crescents on their foreheads? 

Or, should we have the police round them all up, put them in special camps or "Muslitowns" and only allow them out with us civilized folks under special guard and by permission only?  Can we get Home Depot to check on religion before selling fertilizer for example, since these trained by their faith to be terrorists who hate us Muslims are more likely to use it to make bombs, unlike say a Christian White Guy from NY.

Seriously here.

You are so concerned with this group, you must have some trained and educated means of identifying them.

If you were in an auto accident, would you quiz the paramedics, doctors and nurses about their faiths, so that they don't "murder you" for being a patriotic smart white Christian guy, their sworn enemy?

If you see someone with a turban, do you automatically check to ensure your piece is easily accessed with the safety off, you know, in case they suddenly make a sound or something and say something threatening like "hello"?

Seriously. Because, you seem to know so much about how evil these people are, how prone to violence, what their religion teaches and so on.

Have you actually read the Qur'an in it's entirety?

Have you taken the time to talk to any Muslims?
If you did, did you ask them why they hate you so much, and if a different aftershave might make you smell better after they blow you up?

See, I see a danger, but I don't see anything I need to panic about.  Case in point, I drove home 6 hrs from Detroit last night.  I found the weather, the fact that Ontario seems to not believe in salt for their highways, the lack of familiarity with winter driving displayed by Ontario residents (as shown by the 18+ vehicles in the ditch, often backwards and in 2 cases upside down), and the lateness of the hour of the trip to be a much more pressing concern than possibly getting blown up by an IUD by one of the billions of terrorists that hate me so much.  

So, sorry if I seem to be making fun of your apparent paranoia here, but, math, more important and higher priority threats, a lack of mass bombings, cafes exploding, planes continuing to crash, and so on, make me rather skeptical of the "panic-worry-fear" mindset exhibited here, and by fans of certain wack job looney radio hosts.

Stern at least has hot strippers.

Wibble.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

turbans are usually Sihks Bob. 

And Bob, you and Georgia are doing the exact same thing, you are taking what i said, distorting it, exaggerating it, and doing so to ridicule.

you are better than that crap.

you want to think it isnt worth worrying about, just say so, no need to be an *** about it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 27, 2011)

No need for you to be an *** in here either.  You're coming across as a trolling hot head, and I know you're capable of a lot better. Talked to you enough to know that.


My points simple:
It's not something -I- need to put much worry into, other than my usual paying attention to things. I trust that despite the gaping holes in our border defenses, that law enforcement will take care of things, and that while there is the possibility of something happening, it's highly unlikely at this time, and therefore not worth the stress and time expenditure, when compared to other more pressing and likely concerns. That despite the uneducated and ill informed worries of some, and the bumbling's of others entrusted with our security (TSA) things like air travel are pretty safe and worry free.  I will not let fear, uncertainty, doubt, panic or others stop me from going about my daily business, or reduce me to looking at everyone with suspicion. The terrorists haven't beaten me.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

i fail to see how any rational person could think i was trolling.

And because the TSA are morons that WE the people need to be more vigilant.

sure it is a low % shot, but the danger IS real. How large a danger it is is open to debate, but it IS out there. Even you admitt that.

And this country didnt get to where it is by depending on the government to stop the threats. We have a history of citizen involvment.


----------



## MJS (Feb 27, 2011)

*Thread Closed!  After numerous warnings, people still can't play by the forum rules.  If you have nothing polite to say, say nothing at all!*


----------

