Printable View
My point is incredibly strong - your hilarious and that's the only point I have to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
You stated abortion wasn't progressive??? What else can I say!
You have made all my points for me - your a walking joke. Obviously your not un-educated - but ignorant and blind. Oh man, your great - everyone should get one of you.
I really haven't seen any "point" that you made anywhere though? Just spouting junk?
seanchai
Libel? LMAO.Quote:
Originally Posted by J
Let's get this out right here. You're not only a tacit racist as indicated within this thread and in my signature, you also have a history of defending CHILD-RAPERS
As seen here-
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=6621
So tell me, what does a "RICH JEWISH WHITE GUY" have to gain by throwing in with rapist pedophiles?
A rich jewish white guy advocating FOR intellectual property rights and arguing AGAINST the rights of KIDS who were RAPED!
Now I know HOW you're rich! No values. No ethics.
Now it all makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by J
I feel its a double egde sword. religon definitely, especially nowaday, divides more than it unites, mainly because each is taught as the one and only option for "the" question. my parent are devout christians, but told me that i have to choose my own path. Forcing me into something as serious and life determing as religon will do more harm than good.
J, you offered a bizarre scenario of Christian parents raising a child as a Muslim in the Bible Belt. How about some examples of how actual Christian practices are detrimental to children?
I don't see it.
The kid in a religious family spends an hour in Sunday School, coloring in a picture of Jesus. The other 167 hours of the week, his life is indistinguishable from other children. He watches the same TV shows, plays the same games, and gets into the same kinds of mischief.
I think it is ridiculous the way so many people, both secular and religious, have an “us against them” attitude. In reality, their lifestyles and mindsets are not significantly different.
Please, don't blame the actions of ignorant fallible men on religion. It's no different than right-wingers blaming homosexuals for the AIDS epidemic.
Religion of itself is not a bad thing. Men twisting its message to fit their agendas is.
I’ve got to chime in here. The tactics taken and arguments utilized to counter TFan are mostly ineffective simply because, as are most conservative republicans, his diatribe is 90% correct. That percentage would be even higher if they did not attempt to use the Bible as a fact and guidance source. Unfortunately, 10% that is not based on fact is mixed in with the facts cleverly enough to create a very effective argument. That, mixed with their ability to dodge and redirect the argument away from those important clarifications, makes it difficult to debate. Here are some examples:
The Republican Party is for freedom. Free citizens, good education, free industry.
Unfortunately, this is not 100% available to all citizens, especially a good education, which with the right amount of money can be bought. Money also controls industry, as the richest get richer and with their money they can manipulate industry and regulation and tax benefits to create an environment that makes it almost impossible to compete.
I don’t believe republicans in general are racists, they are elitists. I also don’t believe in affirmative action or reparations, because I agree that those, along with a good portion of welfare, do not encourage people to work hard to make something of themselves. That said, the richest people have an interest in keeping the poor down simply because it benefits their bottom line. If everyone was an entrepreneur, who would work for low wages to manufacture, sell, deliver and service what these “entrepreneurs” are getting rich on? It’s a simple matter of class struggle. Every penny more the worker makes is a penny less the owner makes.
As far as progressives, how can progress ever be a bad thing? Abortion is a moral choice. Religion is a choice. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you are for less government because you don’t want industry regulations and social programs to cut profits and create taxes, but you want to regulate morality and control scientific advancement. You are right, progressiveness has its limits. So does free enterprise.
And finally, you are right again to say that this country was founded on Christian ideals that helped to create the greatest country in the world. Keep also in mind that those same founders knew that these Christian ideals could just as well have been Hindu ideals, or Muslim ideals, and that’s why they insisted on freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.
Oh, and by the way, don’t quote the Bible as reference material. It may have social and moral applications, but even then you have to sort through the fable telling to get to anything with substance. Teaching the bible, or any religion, to children usually only makes it less likely that they will look at things with an open mind when they get older. You are a perfect example. Unless, of course, you are simply using it like other conservatives to control the weak minded and are not a true believer.
mrironknee - great post.
J - again, all you can do is cite examples of men misinterpreting scripture as justification for morally dispicable acts. Show me some passages where Jesus specifically tells people to bomb abortion clinics or Mohammad urges his followers to hijack planes.
I'm pretty certain that would be well over the lineQuote:
Originally Posted by J
Yes, of course it would. Thankfully no religion does require children to wear 9 coats in summer!?Quote:
Originally Posted by J
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by J
No. It is absolutely nothing like an insanity defence. Check the M'Naughton rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by J
Limitations, let me see... the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by J
That is funny, but not half as funny as reading this shambles of a thesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by J
And Seanchai
Why are you so determined to start an abortion debate?
That is one hell of a messy question with no black and white answers just grey areas.
Stay away, it will only end in tears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigTreesy
I'm not - but when somebody states "abortion isn't progressive" I want to know why. Especially when the same individual also claims to be against social welfare?
The US is the only so-called civilised country which has this issue. In the rest of the Western world, it's a non-issue.
seanchai
That's what the socialist want you to believe. They want you to believe that power and education rests solely in the hands of "the rich". It's what they do. It's how they operate it. In Venezuala the people bought into that and the government went in and stole private property from private citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrironknee
They want you to believe the lie so that you'll give them the power to take property and rights. It's what they do. Steal property and rights and with them, hope and dignity.
I believe that school makes complete fools of our young men, because they see and hear nothing of ordinary life there. -Petronius
Life is the real education. Skills and trade are also important, but what are those skills worth without ethics and values? What are they worth without Hustle or Experience? Skills and trade can be mentored by a parent or mastercraftsmen. It can be learned through books and application. There are ways. All you need is the will!
The mentality of "I can't afford school because I'm poor" is what keeps people poor. It's what makes drug addicts and alcoholics when a young man sees no way out of his entry-level job except for lighting up or boozing. He has no way out, not because he's poor but because he believes he has no way out. It isn't true until you believe it.
"As a man believes in his heart, so is he"- Proverbs.
You have the power.
Not true. One thing is true though. There will always be rich people and poor people. ALWAYS. No matter what laws you right or however you can micro-legislate. It's only an economic manifestion of survival of the fittest.Quote:
I don’t believe republicans in general are racists, they are elitists. I also don’t believe in affirmative action or reparations, because I agree that those, along with a good portion of welfare, do not encourage people to work hard to make something of themselves. That said, the richest people have an interest in keeping the poor down simply because it benefits their bottom line. If everyone was an entrepreneur, who would work for low wages to manufacture, sell, deliver and service what these “entrepreneurs” are getting rich on? It’s a simple matter of class struggle. Every penny more the worker makes is a penny less the owner makes.
There will always be competition for resources, but to say the rich have an interests in keeping "the poor down" is false. The rich have an interest in keeping rich.... and that's exactly why they are rich. They know how and what to do to get it and keep it. While the poor blame "The man" and take no action to improve their own lives, the rich work on their riches.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It does have tremendous moral implications but murder trumps whatever psychology you can through at it.Quote:
As far as progressives, how can progress ever be a bad thing? Abortion is a moral choice.
I don't see Christians out in taliban gear wacking women in the head for dressing provacatively. Christians wrote the very laws that allow for the very freedoms you enjoy. From pornography to rock concerts.Quote:
Religion is a choice. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you are for less government because you don’t want industry regulations and social programs to cut profits and create taxes, but you want to regulate morality and control scientific advancement.
There are no forced conversions to Christianity. We worked that shit out centuries ago. Muslims are still doing it, though.
Christians wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, both of which strictly forbid religious restriction of behavior.
Enterprise has no limits in a moral and just society.Quote:
You are right, progressiveness has its limits. So does free enterprise.
That's why Muslim women in Middle eastern countries have so many rights, right?Quote:
And finally, you are right again to say that this country was founded on Christian ideals that helped to create the greatest country in the world. Keep also in mind that those same founders knew that these Christian ideals could just as well have been Hindu ideals, or Muslim ideals
They did not insist on "separation of church and state". That's a phrase coined in the 20th century by a bigoted and anti-semitic supreme court justice.Quote:
and that’s why they insisted on freedom of religion and a separation of church and state.
"Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned once in the constitution. Not ONCE.
Listen. You're the one who's allowed yourself to believe the liberal lies. That the individual is relatively powerless and at the mercy of the rich. I'm telling you. The minute you believe you are powerless in this country, is the minute you are.... and that's when they come after your rights and property. Just like in Russia, Venezuela and China. They believed the lie.Quote:
Oh, and by the way, don’t quote the Bible as reference material. It may have social and moral applications, but even then you have to sort through the fable telling to get to anything with substance. Teaching the bible, or any religion, to children usually only makes it less likely that they will look at things with an open mind when they get older. You are a perfect example. Unless, of course, you are simply using it like other conservatives to control the weak minded and are not a true believer.
I'm not calling you weak-minded. But at least consider the possibility that you are very powerful in determining your destiny. The constitution guarantees it.
JUST IN!
Here is a picture of TFan anf his homosexual lover relaxing in their pool after they re-enacted the 'squeeeeeeeeeeal like a pig' from Deliverence on some poor tourist in the woods.
They are taking a break before a big night out of beer drinking and cow tipping.
Now that you have been outed TFan- I hope that you will indeed support gay marrige.
PS. Loooooooooooove the lawn chairs! So chic!
Minds are like bars at weddings. They are best when they are open.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
While its true the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, the concept of it was frequently used by its authors. Thomas Jefferson quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, wrote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, wrote of "total separation of the church from the state". He also wrote "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison also wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" That the purpose of the establishment clauses was to keep religion and government separate is very well set forth in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, ansd served as one of Madison's inspirations for the Bill of Rights. It declares that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination as follows:
"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
so, while that particular phrase is not in the Constitution, the original intention of the words actually used to separate Church and State can easily be gleaned. Keep this in mind too. Neither the word Jesus nor the word God is found in Constitution itself. Christianity is not mentioned anywhere in it, and proposals to do so were defeated at the Constitutional Conventions.
Since you are so big on the Christian Bible, you really should heed the words of your savior. Thats right, Jesus Christ is sometimes considered the inventor of the separation of church and state. His advice to his followers was "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)
FK
The following are actual exerpts from the most recent Republican Party Platforms:Quote:
Originally Posted by TFan
Republicans favor aggressive, proactive measures to ensure that no individual is discriminated against on the basis of race, national origin, gender, or other characteristics covered by our civil rights laws
(notice that sexual orientation is omitted)
We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states
(This invalidates just for homosexuals the long established, well founded principal expressly set forth in the Constitution at Article IV Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.)
We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.
Bush is a Texas Republican so the Texas Republican Party Platform can be read as a blueprint for his administration's policies. The following are actual excerpts from it.
“The Party supports the traditional definition of marriage as a God-ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and the Party opposes the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President, Congress, and the Texas Legislature to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. We urge Congress to exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the traditional definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. Texas families will be stronger because of the passage by Governor Perry and the 78th Texas Legislature of the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’, which denies recognition by Texas of homosexual ‘unions’ legitimized by other states or nations. ”
“The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should ‘family’ be redefined to include homosexual ‘couples.’ We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.”
“The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.”
“We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption of children by homosexuals.”
We oppose programs that advocate or legitimize pre-marital sexual activity, advocate condoms and birth control use by unmarried minors, advocate abortions, and condone homosexual, bisexual, and transgender acts and/or lifestyles, and elevate minors’ rights to make sexual and health care decisions equivalent to their parents.”
“The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act.”
Nonsense is being spoken, but its by Republicans or those who support them in ignorance of their stated principles.
FK
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Well speaking from the world's second wealthiest western country (second to Japan that is), trust me, the very mention of abortion here has people frothing at the mouth. We have had three referendums, countless supreme court cases, months and months of debate in the media and the issue is still as clear as mud.
People wil simply have to agree to disagree on this and respect each others positions. Debate on the morals of the subject is unproductive. The challenge of producing a legal remedy acceptable by both sides remains outstanding however.
"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." -William F BuckleyQuote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
These are intelligent men. I don't put my confidence in what's implied. I put my confidence on what's committed and printed. It is clear the the founders, based on what's committed and printed, wanted NO LAWS with regard to religion. Meaning, if a judge wants to hang the ten commandments in his court room, he should be able to because forcing him to remove it because it's religious is an unconstitutional act.Quote:
While its true the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, the concept of it was frequently used by its authors. Thomas Jefferson quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, wrote: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
Besides, the constitution wasn't drafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison alone.
These are intelligent men of respect. I'm positive that they would state, in print in the constitution, what their intent was. The words "intent" or "spirit of the law" are usually used by defense attorneys to weasel out of the law when their client is guilty as hell. They're weasel words in this case.Quote:
so, while that particular phrase is not in the Constitution, the original intention of the words actually used to separate Church and State can easily be gleaned.
These were men who did not manipulate their words. They said what they meant.
Read this closely. Article 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Intent committed and printed.
And?Quote:
Keep this in mind too. Neither the word Jesus nor the word God is found in Constitution itself. Christianity is not mentioned anywhere in it, and proposals to do so were defeated at the Constitutional Conventions.
Caeser's not here. Things which belong to our American government are things which belong to the people. We don't do emperors here, we are the government. Our founders have given US the basic human right of religious freedom AND freedom from religion.Quote:
Since you are so big on the Christian Bible, you really should heed the words of your savior. Thats right, Jesus Christ is sometimes considered the inventor of the separation of church and state. His advice to his followers was "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)
Thanks Felicia. I'm a fan of your work and I hope I didn't come across as rude or abrupt. I appreciate your respectful and intelligent reply.
I agree and wouldn't that be a beautiful thing. You know as well as I do, it doesn't happen. Laws that would stop abortion being accessable are obstacle but even more so are the droves of anti-abortion nuts standing outside clinics, making death threats, etc. (and on their off-days they go to the prison to support the death penalty :roll: ). People don't agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBigTreesy
Presidents can be made on this ONE issue - and that's terrifying.
seanchai
Again, very effective arguments, but not 100% valid. Let me interject:
It's really not that simple. Generations of families in poverty have created a class of people that do not believe in their own ability to escape their social status without trying "easy" ways out (drugs, sports, entertainment, etc.). Just stating that they can if they believe would be like me telling you that if you really tried you could accept the fact that there is no god and only thousands of years of superstition has convinced people otherwise. It obviously goes against generations of inbreeding. All of the information is available, but the options are better for some than others. I never even implied that the options were not there; just that it wasn't as black and white as you suggest.Quote:
There are ways. All you need is the will!
The mentality of "I can't afford school because I'm poor" is what keeps people poor. It's what makes drug addicts and alcoholics when a young man sees no way out of his entry-level job except for lighting up or boozing. He has no way out, not because he's poor but because he believes he has no way out. It isn't true until you believe it.
"As a man believes in his heart, so is he"- Proverbs.
You have the power.
Your statement is an oxymoron. It contradicts itself. Saying that the rich have an interest in keeping rich is agreeing with my statement. You speak only in extremes when it suits you. There are many "poor" people who are taking action to improve their own live, without great success. What benefit is it to the "rich" to help make others rich?Quote:
There will always be competition for resources, but to say the rich have an interests in keeping "the poor down" is false. The rich have an interest in keeping rich.... and that's exactly why they are rich. They know how and what to do to get it and keep it. While the poor blame "The man" and take no action to improve their own lives, the rich work on their riches.
That is your opinion, and is widely debated. Don't state it as a fact. Without going in to a long debate about life at conception and a fetus versus a human, just remember people more intelligent than either one of us are on both sides of this issue.Quote:
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. It does have tremendous moral implications but murder trumps whatever psychology you can through at it.
You are speaking of radical fundamentalism. This also exists in Christianity to this day. Again, you take the extreme and apply it across the board. Typical debate tactics, but not reality. If you analyze the core of most religions you get a similar theme. And the one thing that holds true for most is they believe that theirs is the only true one.Quote:
I don't see Christians out in taliban gear wacking women in the head for dressing provacatively. Christians wrote the very laws that allow for the very freedoms you enjoy. From pornography to rock concerts.
There are no forced conversions to Christianity. We worked that shit out centuries ago. Muslims are still doing it, though.
Christians wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, both of which strictly forbid religious restriction of behavior.
No society is 100% moral and just. The American society needs checks and balances the same as they all do. It seems to be human nature to look out for yourself. That is the reason the constitution is so great, as they knew the probability of majority rule and allowed for minority representation. The ability of the rich and powerful to control was what brought them to start their own country and create a government ruled by the people.Quote:
Enterprise has no limits in a moral and just society.
You are speaking semantics. By separation of church and state I refer to the guarantees of no laws requiring or preventing the practice of my religion. Your other post speaks of preventing a judge from hanging the 10 commandments in his courtroom. What you seem to not understand is that the courtroom is not his. It belongs to the government, which is all citizens. His personal beliefs should not be reflected. The act of recognizing one particular religion goes against the spirit of the constitution simply because it infers taking sides. Numerous court rulings have confirmed that.Quote:
They did not insist on "separation of church and state". That's a phrase coined in the 20th century by a bigoted and anti-semitic supreme court justice.
"Separation of Church and State" is not mentioned once in the constitution. Not ONCE.
If you are speaking specifically of me, I am not really taking a position here. I have not bought in to the complete rhetoric of either party. I am playing devils advocate and trying to convey that your opinions are biased based on your beliefs as much as the facts. This applies to most people. I myself am a fairly successful person, and take advantage of some of the things I believe may be hurting others. At least I can admit that. I don't need someone to spout propaganda to rationalize my actions and make me feel better about myself. I try and see things how they are. I also do not accept things on face value or even historical acceptance.Quote:
Listen. You're the one who's allowed yourself to believe the liberal lies. That the individual is relatively powerless and at the mercy of the rich. I'm telling you. The minute you believe you are powerless in this country, is the minute you are.... and that's when they come after your rights and property. Just like in Russia, Venezuela and China. They believed the lie.
I'm not calling you weak-minded. But at least consider the possibility that you are very powerful in determining your destiny. The constitution guarantees it.
I will end my participation in this debate here. I actually enjoy the process, and appreciate your ability to challenge my intellect. I also accept your right to believe as you see fit, as I do all people, insofar as it does not restrict my own freedom.
i only read the title and first message... so my message will be based off of that.
anything could really be considered child abuse... whatever you "force" upon a child that doesn't know better, religion, or what he does, watches, or if he chooses to wear a dress even if he's your lil boy..
for the religion part...; religions are just an organized cult.. where a lot of child molestation happens, suicide by cool aid (didnt one cult do that?), and mean old ladies that push the cross onto you, then flip you off when u pass them on the road.
now put the two together.... if u want your children molested, and to grow up mean, send him to organized cults or religions..just warn them that the cool aid has a kick to it..
.............sorry, i couldnt read thru all the other messages, that maze is uncomprehendable with a hangover
MORE BREAKING NEWS!Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC
A reliable source(TFools first wife/first cousin) has just informed HA News that not only is this sanctimonious little shit TFool a hypocrite in regards to gay marriage, he is currently married!
No...I'm not talking about first wife/first cousin, she finally caught him cheating on her with his uncle...
She said that she wasn't playing second fiddle to no tractor supply salesman...nosireee...
So it was "fuck you TFool!", and then she drove off with the house! :lol:
Now this certainly wouldn't be the first time some bible-banging butt pirate was caught with his pants down, and his hypocrisy exposed(among other things)...
But cheer up TFool, you are not alone, brave xian soldier...
At the very least the Reverend Ted Haggard feels your pain....
But you know what they say about people who live in glass outhouses... :roll: :lol: 8)
ROFLMAO.....GOOD ONE BABY :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by AllanahStarrNYC
PRICELESS CHEF, LMAO :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
NICE TO SEE YOU BACK FELICIA!!!!....KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
More breaking NEWS!Quote:
Originally Posted by chefmike
The training camp located where TFans location, as stated by his Location on his old profile -WHERE WE KICK TERRORIST ASS- has been uncovered in East Texas in an isolated bunker where a mass arsenal of weapons, beer, and sheep (seems no women are around) were kept.
I believe T Fan is not in the pic but that is his gay lover in the front right.
Why are we arguing religion. Religion is man made, with the tenants of each crafted by man (a man) in his or his benefactors own best interest.
The human race is still retarded not to see this. Christ wrote nothing! He preached. People claim to have recorded his words in the new testament. Most times when they heard them they were drunk (Jesus was always turning water to wine...to keep his audience)! And the persons who recorded what those people related they heard (Matthew,Mark,Luke and John), were the politicaly correct editors of their time.
The same applies to the old testament, what happened more or less happened but was enhanced by the writers. And the Moslems, came about when the arabs were snubbed by the jews (they controlled the media even back then) and proceeded to write their own version to protect their lifestyle.
And all the masses and the powerfull latched on to it (them) because they wanted a set of directions of what is right and wrong (thus the birth of lawyers). They couldn't grasp the simple concept of do unto others.....
FOR CHRISTSAKE, JUST BE GOOD. YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS BUT IT'S NOT EASY, IS IT. IT'S TOUGH LIKE IT IS FOR AN OBESE PERSON TO PASS BY THE AROMA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MCDONALDS.
For God sake, use the gifts GOD gave you (your mind)! Look up in the sky, see the stars, they are mostly suns like ours. God knows what revolves around them. He made all this and let's it run like a train set.
Who the fuck knows what's beyond the limits of our primative technology. You also place to much creedance in our scientists, thousands of years from now they'll be portrayed like "Theodoric the Barber of York" on the Saturday nite live skit.
Stop the fucking religious bullshit! You all know deep down inside that what you do is right or wrong. You don't need a set of instructions (religion). You were born with it.
The Human race on Earth at this point in time is still retarded. We got a long way to go. And we delude ourselves when we do something we know is wrong by blaming it on some external force. We make the call, not them or HIM/HER/IT (IT meaning God you nitpicking angry typing guys and gurls).
Hey, use what you got! And don't ask GOD to effect the outcome of a sporting event. He say, "Man, they just don't get it, ....but give them time and a few more catastrophe's and they'll be running like one of my solar systems. :roll:
I think religion is great. A parent has every right to enforce their values on their kids. I've seen both liberals and right wingers dressing their kids in cloths that should be criminal. Allowing your genetic male child to goto school in a dress is going to get that kid beat. It is the parents job to protect their children and keep them out of harms way. If a parent allows their child to make adult decisions at a very young age that will cause them harm, that is wrong.
I think Jesus taught things like turn the other cheek, let the person who has not sinned cast the first stone, etc. These are important lessons or parables for young children. I think we are missing traditionalist values where parents can spank their kids as a form of discipline without getting them taken away.
However, yes it should be a crime to raise your children to be Muslim. I don't think that is a very good, forgiving religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicki Richter
as opposed to sending them to be altar boys hand having a 20%chance to get molested by a priest...and having the pope do nothing about it..oyeah, no jail time for the priest either
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4...gious_Life.jpg
[quote="Vicki Richter"]Allowing your genetic male child to goto school in a dress is going to get that kid beat.[quote]
Nonsense. I once showed up for class in grade school wearing a dress and sunglasses, I never got beat up in my life. In fact, I've always been rather popular.
That's a true story, by the way, and no, I do not cross dress or sit down when I pee.
:P
[quote="hondarobot"]i sit down when i pee.... because im too lazy to stand, and too lazy to aimQuote:
Originally Posted by Vicki Richter
[quote="TheOne1"]Well, fair enough. I do remember numerous times, swaying back in forth in a bathroom watching the wall paper turn into heiroglyphics and thinking to myself:Quote:
Originally Posted by hondarobot
"I should probably sit down. . ."
So yes, I have also sat to pee on occasion.
So there.
bro..i was only kiddin about the peeing sittin down part....
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4...elson-haha.gif
heh. No offense taken. I honestly did go to school wearing a dress once, and I have on occasion sat down to pee. I use to have waaaaay too much chemical fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOne1
Everyone is taking everything so damn seriously lately, it's just weird. My crazy stories are pretty weird themself, but 100% true, and I've never meant to offend anyone here (unless I was fighting trolls).
So Lets All Calm Down and just have fun again.
Oh, and J, you have been thread jacked. Bam :!:
8)
Stop right there. LMAO. I'm beginning to think that you're playing stupid on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by J
The first crusade saw Christians coming to beat down on the Muslims for stealing Jerusalem under Caliph al-Khattab. It was Islam, in 638 that came into Jerusalem in the name of "Allah". Judaism existed LONG before Muhammed was even born... and it existed in ISRAEL. Muhammed went around town claiming to be a prophet, the Jews said "Get your bitch ass out of here".
So Muhammed went into ancient Arabia and began conscripting retards. Muhammed's own tribe told him stop preaching that nonsense because you're making yourself and us look stupid. Muhammed refused, his tribe kicked his ass out. Muhammed went then to Egypt/Ethiopia where a King Al-Negashi, A CHRISTIAN, gave him asylum.
The Jews in the region refused to live in what would have been the "First Islamic State", with guess who as King and prophet? "Muhammed" .... which meant they didn't accept the Islamic version of God. Muhammed got Butthurt and riled up his band of retards to conquer Medina and then Jerusalem. They also stopped praying toward Jerusalem and now to Mecca.
The first crusade was to RECAPTURE Jerusalem.
Why all this? Because the Jews, mainly, refused Muhammed as King or prophet... for no other reason than "Leave us alone to practice our faith". Muhammed said the liberal thing to say, "That's racist!"
The crusades were all necessary. From Jerusalem to Richard "I dare you to touch my cross, bitch" Lionheart. From Muhammed to El Cid.
Quote:
now theyre the moderates...
Damn straight! We've done all the killing we've done. Christianity and Judaism created the west. We've taught "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy" before it was written into any western law or doctrine.
While Islam is still forcing women into headscarves, practicing forced conversions and getting butthurt over cartoons, it is the Judeo-Christian west that has advanced society forward and into flight, space, internet, medicine and art. Look at what our system produces and look at what there's produces. The west is the righteous.
You have the right to speak in Judeo-Christian society. You have the right to curse god, curse political leaders, curse your mom and dad, curse the bible, koran and torah..... not only without facing death, but also without facing economic sanction and health. They don't do that in Iran.
If you were in Iran, right now, speaking against political/religious leaders, muhammed or the koran you'd be branded "Dhimmi" and taxed all to hell and face being ostracized for falling out of line with guess what? The Islamic "Community" (theres that word again)
Our way is better.
first of all Mohammed started his ministy in Arabia.
Second of all the Romans had driven the jews out of Judea LONG before the muslims came. They also built a church where the Temple had been, after they built a pagan temple there.
Third for most of the last two millennia Jews were SAFER in the Islamic world than in europe, and that will become true again as soon as the Palestinian issue is settled.
Fourth actually read the effing Qu'an and Hadiths to find out about the religion.
last I am gland you looked up which Kalifah captured Jerusalem. But saddened that you portrayed the province as having been populated by jews Immediately before then. Goo ol roman white people are the ones that scattered the Jews. Not the Arabs.
To sleepy to dispute the socialist lies of Islam. Mohammed first tried to lie to the jews in the land of Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
LOL. Typical MusLIEm distortion. I said ISRAEL. Not Egypt, NOT ethiopia, NOT "Judea" as a whole............ ISRAEL. Most of your Islamo-facists bullshit rests on that lie..... Muhammed, the father of your lies, wasnt even born with your own framework or framework of lies, you lieing liar. The Jews were in Israel long before you can even lie. The internet is a haven against the lies of Islam. Word! The Jews were there first. Challenge that fact, devil-worshipper.Quote:
Second of all the Romans had driven the jews out of Judea LONG before the muslims came. They also built a church where the Temple had been, after they built a pagan temple there.
What came first? The Jews of Israel or Muhammed and his retard band of idiots claim to Jerusalem?
If by "safer", you mean "Dhimmi" or equivalent. You're stupid.Quote:
third for most of the last two millennia Jews were SAFER in the Islamic world than in europe, and that will become true again as soon as the Palestinian issue is settled.
Jews, throughout post-ancient egyptian-Islamic history and to this day, are look on as "Dhimmi". Because Islam is the great opressor. Just look at your women.
Now you dispute historical records? On what grounds? Let me guess...... the Jews didnt like Muhammed becauseQuote:
Fourth actually read the effing Qu'an and Hadiths to find out about the religion.
last I am gland you looked up which Kalifah captured Jerusalem. But saddened that you portrayed the province as having been populated by jews Immediately before then. Goo ol roman white people are the ones that scattered the Jews. Not the Arabs.
A: He preached sex with 13 year olds
B: Convert them by swords
C: They're racists!
LMAO!!!!
Blame the romans= blame whitey. You guys are stuck in the stone age of "Believe in Muhammed or else" and forced conversions!
Stay in your stone age.
Let the West move Beyond!!!
Tfan. You can say what you want. These are the facts for the benefit of any and all who come here.
First. I assert as well as most historians Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed long before the birth of islam. As proof.
Wikipedia:destruction of Jerusalem 70AD
Second I assert that the jews did revolt against the Romans and were scattered to the four winds with their defeat by the Romans.
Wikipedia:Bar Kokhba's revolt 130's AD
Last but not least most every historian ackowledges that the Judeans gave the Romans Hell. They did not loose because they did not fight hard. They lost because the Romans, at the height of their Imperial power, fought smart.
Simon bar Kokhba
"This was a costly victory for Rome, and Emperor Hadrian, when reporting to the Roman Senate, did not begin with the customary greeting: "I and my army are well", and refused a triumphant entrance, the only recorded instance in history where this was the case. In the aftermath of the war, Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judaea as Syria Palaestina, named for the Philistines, in order to humiliate the Jewish population by naming it after their ancient enemies. The name persists to this day as Palestine."
Last but not least I really have to laugh at being called an "Islamofaschist" You do realize I am an exotic entertainer? Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
So you don't deny the jews were in Israel LONG before Islam was ever fabricated.
At least you admit the truth.
So you admit; the Jews were forcibly removed. Just like Iran, Ahmedinejad and most of the Arab/Muslim world want to do. :lol:Quote:
Second I assert that the jews did revolt against the Romans and were scattered to the four winds with their defeat by the Romans.
Wikipedia:Bar Kokhba's revolt 130's AD
At least you admit the truth.
So you mean the Jews lost Israel in a war, fair and square?Quote:
Last but not least most every historian ackowledges that the Judeans gave the Romans Hell. They did not loose because they did not fight hard. They lost because the Romans, at the height of their Imperial power, fought smart.
Simon bar Kokhba
Just like the Arab's lost Israel in the Israeli/Arab war of 1948?
LOL. Do I detect the smell of the traditional Muslim double standard?
It's ok if the Jews lost Israel in a war with the Romans. But if Islam loses Israel in a war, then it's Jihad?
Now I think I understand you perfectly.
A profession that'd have you hung up and strung up in the Arab world. You can thank our Christian Forefathers for your right to be.Quote:
Last but not least I really have to laugh at being called an "Islamofaschist" You do realize I am an exotic entertainer? Right?
I'll close with my fantastic quote-
It's ok if the Jews lost Israel in a war with the Romans. But if Islam loses Israel in a war, then it's Jihad?
The history of the middle east is long and complicated. In a nutshell the reason why a palestinain state was not created was because of the notion of Pan Arabism and the concept of the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a pan Islamic state. Basically Imagine what it would be like to have had the vatican rule all of Catholic europe. The Arabs wanted to unifiy into a huge state. This almost happened a couple of times... but it never really worked out.
The right of conquest is a valid way to capture a state however it is not always practical to conquere a larger and faster growing population. Furthermore it is not always right for the strong to do as they will. I mean doe the fact the the Wermacht kicked the red army's ass give the Germans the legit right to drive off all the "inferior" people they found in Russia? Or to do anything else they wanted to do? HELL NO. Those things were wrong just as it is wrong for Israel to use it's millitary muscle to oppress a population of size equal to it's own and faster growing.
Right now the Palestinians are stateless people living in utter poverty. How can there be peace when there is such a vast imbalance between people living so close together? Should the Palestinians just Curl up and die.
Oh and @ Vicky Richter and people who think like her about Islam.
How much of the Quran have you read? I mean do you know of what you speak or are you equating the entire religion with some particular assholes who claim to practice it?
It's very simple, actually... though you will attempt, again, to cloud, cast doubt and imply malfeasance when it comes to the rightful ownership of Israel, both legally and religiously. It's called "Psychological warfare" and I'll give you credit, it is very effective against the guilty white liberal in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Actually, withholding Israel, Arabs have the right, right now to form another Caliphate. It is the militant INSISTENCE, that the Jews abandon their legal right, Israel, that we're fighting over today just as we were 60 years ago and 1400 years ago. There isn't a caliphate, simply put, because not all Arabs want one because Arabs, in spite of their short comings, are actually intelligent. Not all Muslims want to live in a taliban like state and not all Arab's want to live in a westernized Arab state.Quote:
In a nutshell the reason why a palestinain state was not created was because of the notion of Pan Arabism and the concept of the Caliphate. The Caliphate is a pan Islamic state. Basically Imagine what it would be like to have had the vatican rule all of Catholic europe. The Arabs wanted to unifiy into a huge state. This almost happened a couple of times... but it never really worked out.
So their will never be a true Caliphate.
Let's not forget, Israel didn't use it's "military muscle" to attack it's neighbors. Israel's neighbors (all of em) attacked ISRAEL.... Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon attacked Israel, FIRST in 1948 and you guys lost. Almost from the day it was reborn, Israel was attacked by muslims. But even before that, the Mufti (A pro-Nazi arab leader) was riling idiots against the Jews.Quote:
The right of conquest is a valid way to capture a state however it is not always practical to conquere a larger and faster growing population. Furthermore it is not always right for the strong to do as they will. I mean doe the fact the the Wermacht kicked the red army's ass give the Germans the legit right to drive off all the "inferior" people they found in Russia? Or to do anything else they wanted to do? HELL NO. Those things were wrong just as it is wrong for Israel to use it's millitary muscle to oppress a population of size equal to it's own and faster growing.
Don't talk about who's right and who's wrong because the facts prove you are wrong, no matter what approach you take to the topic.
If you want to argue that the Jews were forced out of Israel by the Romans fine. But I'm going to counter that the Muslims lost Israel to the Jews in the same manner. You can't argue from both sides. Either it's ok to take land by conquest or it's not. The Jews were in Israel before Muhammeds daddy's daddy was even a gleem in his great grandfathers eyes. It belongs to them. If you justify their removal by the romans then you justify conquest.
And by justifying conquest you justify the current state of Israel.
If you say conquest is wrong, then the Romans were wrong and Israel still belongs to the jews.
No they are human beings. They should not curl up and die. They should stop believing the brainwash that the PLO and Hezbollah are feeding them and move forward with real peace efforts.... It's what the Israeli's have wanted. Hell, they made large land concessions in 2000 for that purpose.... but guess what? You're guys failed to keep their word and the Israelis had to call the repo-man on the land.Quote:
Right now the Palestinians are stateless people living in utter poverty. How can there be peace when there is such a vast imbalance between people living so close together? Should the Palestinians just Curl up and die.
You want to blame someone for Palestinian failure? Blame the thugs that you allow to roam freely throughoutt Palestine and blame the palestinians for allowing that them to get away with it.