Bush...

[kindpastor offline]

Everyone is so con war. I don't understand this. Most NOT ALL but MOST of the soldiers there were excited about going to war. They WANTED to. Now, there were probably some who were forced... but most want to be there. Or at least enlisted [volunteered] Anyway, there will NEVER be world peace. So, the best idea is to have troops in places where America isn't exactly favored and try to stop things from happening as much as possible. There will ALWAYS be some country holding a grudge against us, as long as Pandora's Box was opened, there will always be a bad egg who has the power to trun the world against America. Which most likely will never happen. And besides, Bush is going to be President right now and there really isn't anything that you can do to change that. Although, I would have liked to watch Kerry become President and then fall flat on his face as soon as another country committed another terrorist attack on us. That would have been quite amusing. I mean, President Bush had that whole terrorist attack thing to handle, and the country is still running rather smoothly right? He handled that well, considering. He will be able to do it again. THIS is why there haven't been too many other intense terrorist attacks committed in America.

Paige, what proof do you have that Kerry would not have been able to handle a terrorist attack? It's all speculation, and I can't say with any more certainty than you can, but I think he would have stood up to the test as well as Bush did in 2001.

Kerry would not have been hounded by the press on every move he made and would have also attacked Iraq so--yeah Kerry would have been the same but then we'd be taxed

Also, I'm curious as to what you think GW is doing correctly right now. Judging by your signature, I'm guessing you don't register on the extreme left side of the Kinsey scale. What do you think about GW's rallying against the queer community? Do you think it's his place to push for laws banning marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Where do you think the line is drawn between church and state? Well his Tax cuts have stimulated the economy, If its true that he cut food stamps this is always a plus--his neocon foreign policy seems to be working as well

As for your statement that we're stuck with Bush, I think you're wrong. There IS something we can do about it. It's extreme, but it's been tried before. We could impeach him if we got enough votes in favor of it. Just because he slipped into the White House for another four years, that doesn't mean he's gauaranteed the full run.Not going to happen my friend the republicans control both houses and none of them dislike Bush enough to impeach him (Heck they didn't even have the guts to impeach Clinton)

Paige - just a point that not everyone here is American - the actions from your last post which might seem justified to you can seem to some of us outsiders as less like foreign policy and more like policing the world.

Just a thought.

War isn't a easy issue to handle. The way Bush handles war is like some enfuriated teenager playing some war videogame on a PS2. Shoot there, shoot this... invade the territory... you win, game over.

Ditto to that, TB3 and Rodri. I've lived in the states my whole life and I disagree with our foreign policy. Especially under GW's command, the USA has turned into a rude playground monitor. We've shoved our noses into the world's business for long enough, in my opinion. This whole thing started because we got involved in a RELIGIOUS war. Now the whole thing is political and no matter what we do, whether we stay or pull out, feelings will be hurt and people will be angry.We were more rude under the Johnson administration than anything else, but I digress. I think you are incorrect in saying that we got involved in a religious war--this war is an act of necessity to protect the well being of our country (as explained in the earlier post). Religion or not, if we had not been attacked we would not be at ar.

You people obviously have no idea what your talking about. Not to mention the fact that you are WAY misinformed. You getting this from CNN? Wow. How Gay.

o.O

once again, making a presumption based on your signature, but your use of the phrase "How Gay" surprises me. I have been involved in the gay community for quite some time and have not picked up from anyone I've met EVER that they think it's alright to use that phrase to describe anything but someone's sexuality (it's certainly not a good thing in my book).
I know this isn't about Bush, per say, but I was really struck by your usage of the phrase, especially as <i>it immediately followed your complete disregard for everyone's knowledge of the subject at hand</i>. Had I been involved in the debate up till now, I would have been more insulted by the entire comment than I already am by the "How Gay" part.I think "gay" means something different in this conext

[KarinBerry offline]

kindpastor, it was the use of the word 'gay' in that context that I was disagreeing with.

the use of the word 'gay' today to describe something other than anyone's sexuality has a negative connotation. Paige's use of the word to describe using CNN.com as a source confused me because she has 'gay pride' in rainbow letters as her signature.

saying that it's 'gay' to use CNN.com as a source is in bad taste. She could just as well have said it was 'questionable' or 'unwise'. Instead, she had to use the word 'gay' and bring around the connotation that being gay is bad.

<u>A proof:</u>
if: Using CNN.com as a source = gay
and: Using CNN.com as a source = bad
then: gay = bad

do you see why I take offense at the use of the word 'gay' to describe things that do not have sexuality? It attaches a negative stigma to being gay, and I don't like that because I and many of my friends are not heterosexual.

I was confused because if I'm understanding her signature correctly, she should know why using 'gay' in that context is possibly offensive to some people. hell, she ought to be offended by it.

I'm sorry this is off topic. I really felt this point had to be made.

[kindpastor offline]

I get the idea--but I think the word "gay" will always mean "bad" in certain contexts--the best thing to do is not to think of "gay" as meaning "homosexual" when used in this context, just as "gay" does not mean "happy" as it used to.

[Max Gene offline]

This is indeed a religious war, and any idiot who doesn't realize otherwise needs to read the Koran. The muslims are ordered to destroy those who reject Allah. We were not attacked because of our international affairs- we were attacked because we do not believe in Allah, and his servants, who are some of the most aggressive around, more so than many commies, are interested in having only Muslims around. At least the extremists. We would've been attacked regardless, or someone else would've. It's really quite simple and it's not Bush's fault, as he didn't write the Koran.

[Dummo Marx]

This is indeed a religious war, and any idiot who doesn't realize otherwise needs to read the Koran. The muslims are ordered to destroy those who reject Allah. We were not attacked because of our international affairs- we were attacked because we do not believe in Allah, and his servants, who are some of the most aggressive around, more so than many commies, are interested in having only Muslims around. At least the extremists. We would've been attacked regardless, or someone else would've. It's really quite simple and it's not Bush's fault, as he didn't write the Koran.

Max Gene, I find your statement both idiotic, ignorant and offensive...let me explain why so this post does not get disregarded as a mere flame.

You state that the muslim religion incites people to butcher other people for not believing; that is a profound lie; though I have not read the Coran presonally, I do have vast knowledge about it. What incites people to butcher other people is not the Coran but religious fanatism.

To be honest, you were...hmmm..how to put this bluntly...attacked? no...you were brought to divine justice...

As a foreinger of the USA but also as the inhabitant of one of the border countries (and of a border city as well) I must say that it was about time someone finally erupted against the USA constant acts of...greed-feed savagery....it was a savage act as well, but not unlike those the USA has commited countless times...and will continue to commit if it is not finally struck down...

Do you not notice the irony in your phrase " The muslims are ordered to destroy those who reject Allah."?
It is the same as "The USA army is ordered to destroy those who reject democracy"

I had more stuff in mind, yet seems like I've lost my train of tought for the moment; Max Gene, if you can manage to be tolerant and observant for a moment, I would much like it if you read my post, yet if all you can muster is an offensive remark I ask you to hold it in or PM it to me, in order to keep this topic active for those more comprehensive

[Max Gene offline]

"Tolerant"? That's the lead part of moral relativism, which I picked apart last week as being inconsistent and impossible in a term paper, I can email some of it to you if you like.

And I do indeed seem to recall that's part of what they believe. And also, the US Army does not take such a stand. Those who are threats, yes, get messed with, maybe too much. Your statement disproves nothing and is simple namecalling like what you accused me of- how're you better than me in that respect? Maybe I'm being an idiot, but you're not being any better, if I may say so.

So as far as what you just said, same to you.

Now then, if someone who HAS read the Koran can tell me I'm wrong and tell me what passage people misintrepret, I'll take back that statement about the Muslim holy tome.

Anyone who has a real argument in here?

[Dummo Marx]

"Tolerant"? That's the lead part of moral relativism, which I picked apart last week as being inconsistent and impossible in a term paper, I can email some of it to you if you like.

I agree it to be incosistent, and will much like to read your term paper, my mail is Draghignazzo@gmail.com

Those who are threats, yes, get messed with, maybe too much.

In that case I must call the threat assesment done b the USA as...rather idiotic...since it involves the murder of innocents, imprisonment of "possible terrorists" and other paraphenalia of the sort.

Your statement disproves nothing and is simple namecalling like what you accused me of- how're you better than me in that respect? Maybe I'm being an idiot, but you're not being any better, if I may say so.

I agree with that, I got over excited and lost sense for a minute, yet I didn't intend to disprove anything in relation with Bush, I just indetended to state the why the attacks happened, something I did much earlier in the thread, et was ignored.

Anyone who has a real argument in here?

It's intersting, you declare ignorance (you did in fact), declare how your only source is the media....and then try to establish your argument as being "real"?

My argument was sketchy, I admit....yet your was no better and showed off more preponent than mine.

[Max Gene offline]

I never said my only argument is the media- I have a reliable source, my teacher, who will often research things if something's in question. He often digs through the common knowledge and finds the truth and I trust him. I admit Some of what I do is wrong or shaky and I can't back it up, in which case I try to state that I may be wrong or it is my opinion.

[kindpastor offline]

This is indeed a religious war, and any idiot who doesn't realize otherwise needs to read the Koran. The muslims are ordered to destroy those who reject Allah. We were not attacked because of our international affairs- we were attacked because we do not believe in Allah, and his servants, who are some of the most aggressive around, more so than many commies, are interested in having only Muslims around. At least the extremists. We would've been attacked regardless, or someone else would've. It's really quite simple and it's not Bush's fault, as he didn't write the Koran.

Max Gene, I find your statement both idiotic, ignorant and offensive...let me explain why so this post does not get disregarded as a mere flame.

You state that the muslim religion incites people to butcher other people for not believing; that is a profound lie; though I have not read the Coran presonally, I do have vast knowledge about it. What incites people to butcher other people is not the Coran but religious fanatism.

To be honest, you were...hmmm..how to put this bluntly...attacked? no...you were brought to divine justice...

As a foreinger of the USA but also as the inhabitant of one of the border countries (and of a border city as well) I must say that it was about time someone finally erupted against the USA constant acts of...greed-feed savagery....it was a savage act as well, but not unlike those the USA has commited countless times...and will continue to commit if it is not finally struck down...Innocent people did not deserve to pay the price for these "crimes" which you have been rather vague in describing

Do you not notice the irony in your phrase " The muslims are ordered to destroy those who reject Allah."?
It is the same as "The USA army is ordered to destroy those who reject democracy"

I had more stuff in mind, yet seems like I've lost my train of tought for the moment; Max Gene, if you can manage to be tolerant and observant for a moment, I would much like it if you read my post, yet if all you can muster is an offensive remark I ask you to hold it in or PM it to me, in order to keep this topic active for those more comprehensive

The US has commited far less crimes than any other nation in the world and has done more good than any other nation in the world. You are sorely mistaken if you beleive we deserve to be "struck down" after all the good we have done.

But lest say I am wrong.

Please give evidence of these suppsoed "crimes" you speak of, I don't mean a laundry list of things like "corporations rape the world" etc etc, but actual proof of crimes that you think are so terrible they warrant the murder of 3000 people as an act of "divine justice"

[Dummo Marx]

-The murder of thousands of people (Vietnam war). Should I need proof of that, I'm pretty sure you can get the numbers if you google it.

That alone should prove enough...yet I wonder about what "good" the USA has done...

SECOND EDIT
Some things come to mind, few tha can cualify as "altruistic though"...very few

=========
EDIT:

I never said my only argument is the media- I have a reliable source, my teacher, who will often research things if something's in question. He often digs through the common knowledge and finds the truth and I trust him. I admit Some of what I do is wrong or shaky and I can't back it up, in which case I try to state that I may be wrong or it is my opinion.

I can't say anything against that, since most of the knowledge I obtain is from related media (teachers, family members) yet I usually try to back everything up with personally obtained information and rely as little as possible on what people tell me.

[kindpastor offline]

-The murder of thousands of people (Vietnam war). Should I need proof of that, I'm pretty sure you can get the numbers if you google it.Murder is unjustified homicide--deaths caused during war are not murder--unless they are committed in cold blood.

That alone should prove enough...yet I wonder about what "good" the USA has done...I can't fathom why you think the people in the world trade center deserved to pay the price for this "crime" you speak of.

SECOND EDIT
Some things come to mind, few tha can cualify as "altruistic though"...very few

=========
EDIT:

I never said my only argument is the media- I have a reliable source, my teacher, who will often research things if something's in question. He often digs through the common knowledge and finds the truth and I trust him. I admit Some of what I do is wrong or shaky and I can't back it up, in which case I try to state that I may be wrong or it is my opinion.

I can't say anything against that, since most of the knowledge I obtain is from related media (teachers, family members) yet I usually try to back everything up with personally obtained information and rely as little as possible on what people tell me.

[Max Gene offline]

He's stating he doesn't believe we should've been in Vietnam. We shouldn't have, our reasons were against communism (Which doesn't work at all, anyone who advocates it, PM me and I'll debate it with you), but it still wasn't our fight.

[kindpastor offline]

And he sees the death of 3000 innocents as "divine justice" based on the vietnam war. Anyone who thinks this has some severe problems--or has seen too many Disney movies.

[Dummo Marx]

I've been bested by both of you, I have nothing to conitnue my side of the debate and must accept my defeat, good to have been able to debate, even if it was for a short while...now if you excuse me, my big bro seems to have some illness and I must tend to him quickly, goodbye and thanks for your opinions and for taking mine into consideration.

[kindpastor offline]

I've been bested by both of you, I have nothing to conitnue my side of the debate and must accept my defeat, good to have been able to debate, even if it was for a short while...now if you excuse me, my big bro seems to have some illness and I must tend to him quickly, goodbye and thanks for your opinions and for taking mine into consideration.

I just hope you've modified the particular opinion that the WTC attacks were divine justice.

[Dummo Marx]

Indeed I have

[Reesane offline]

Two points:

1.We atheists sit back ad think “You idiots.â€

[kindpastor offline]

[quote="Reesane"]Two points:

1.We atheists sit back ad think “You idiots.â€

[KarinBerry offline]

[quote="kindpastor"][quote="Reesane"]Two points:

1.We atheists sit back ad think “You idiots.â€

[MY85 offline]

edit that to say "pioneer in freedom of Christianity" and you're on the mark. Of the nations that officially expanded their empires into the new world (England, Spain, France, and the Netherlands), there was one that did so for non-religious reasons.

Religion was the pretext for invasion. I'm not so sure about this in Netherlands's case.

The Spanish based their imperial expansionism almost completely upon the need to convert the heathens to Catholicism. "Gold, God, and Glory." That's why they did it. They wanted gold, they wanted to bring people to God, and they wanted to establish a large empire.

I think there was some little debate about this on the Jodi Forrest thread (among racism, skinheads, etc.). As an idea, the religion was the pretext for the Spanish to invade SouthAmerica and extract all the gold and goodies they could get. Anyways, by that time if you didn't turn to the spanish people, they would have slaughtered you. And when the Spanish invaded the Tahuantinsuyo kingdom, they did it in a perfect moment (a battle for the throne was taking place at the moment). And since that moment, I think Peru was already f**ked up.

Yes, in the US, we see tolerance of all religions. Legally, that's required. Beyond that, you draw up the parallels between Islam and Christianity and know that each is made up mostly of peaceful people, and then look at their extremists. Al-Quaeda goes after non-believers to exact God's justice by blowing up buildings. Christian extremists go after sinners and exact God's justice on them by stringing them up on fences to die after beating them to unrecognisable bloody pulps.

Indeed. Strangely, in the Catholic's case, the Spanish (one of the biggest promoters of the Catholic religion) accepted gay marriage, which is considered as a sin. Yet, I don't mind gay marriage. And sorry if I'm not making any good points, just in case.

Oh, and my post Nº 5000 happened right here.

[Reesane offline]

(bows to KarinBerry and RoDrInCuBuS)

You both hit the nail on the head!

[kindpastor offline]

[quote="KarinBerry"][quote="kindpastor"][quote="Reesane"]Two points:

1.We atheists sit back ad think “You idiots.â€

[Max Gene offline]

Christianity isn't exactly looked on so favorably anymore, being attacked to stupidity in America and everywhere, unfortunately for us. Us being other Christians of course.

[kindpastor offline]

Christianity isn't exactly looked on so favorably anymore, being attacked to stupidity in America and everywhere, unfortunately for us. Us being other Christians of course.

I have no idea what you just said.

(bows to KarinBerry and RoDrInCuBuS)

You both hit the nail on the head!

I guess, but they hit the wrong nail.

[Reesane offline]

Ok... my point was:

Intolernce(sp)+ Religion= Bad

Religion + Idiot= Bad

And if you still don't understand my point.... I can't help you.