Question for the Left
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=123610
Printed Date: 26 January 2026 at 8:01pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Question for the Left
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: Question for the Left
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:23am
|
I am confussed here.....The Left and the Democrates state that impsosing values on someone be they social or religious are wrong.
Yet the "religion" or belief of atheism, and or agnostic beliefs must be imposed on those who by their belief actually have values that differ from those who wish to impose thier values of no religion in any way means or form in our sociaty and culture because they the few are offended, and the few must have their rights imposed over the many. The left state that there is no reason for war or violence since all can be negotiated. Does history have examples of how man in his faults have negotiated peace with those who his society has determined to be a threat either real or imagined? Could we have negotiated a peace with Nazi Germany and how long would it have lasted after they turned thier eyes our direction as we maintained our isolationism and technological stagnation while they developed rocket and jet technology while we were still flying biplanes as front line aircraft, atomic developement while we questioned Einstein and Ferme on the fantasy of nuclear weapons. Man is a predator, your neighbor for all his civilized beliefs in some way manner or form wants what you have and given the opertunity will take it by force if required for his need. Radical Islam sees the west, be they man, women and child as a threat to his belief. And within his belief sees that in killing a "infidel" is in itself a way to prove his believe in his "god". They reject as evil our social and religious beliefs and will do all that it takes to remove that threat from his world. Why in a world of mans faults and perversion does the left, for all of histories failures, still insist that there is no evil, we can negotiate and persuade those who belief differant from us to let all live in peace. Utopian views, be they what the world would prefere, yes, but in mans reality is it ever possible? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Civeta Dei
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:26am
|
I understand the main point, I think. But the second paragraph lost me.
-------------  |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:29am
| ^wow I HAVN'T SEEN YOU IN AWHILE! |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:30am
I love OS so much. ------------- |
Posted By: WGP guy
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:33am
| If I was a liberal, I would answer that. But since I'm not, I wonder the same thing. |
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:35am
Precisly. ------------- |
WGP guy wrote:Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 11:51am
|
I thought about answering all of those questions, but I realized I am not a spokesman for the left. Nor do I want to be part of a conformist group that has only one ideal. What conservatives fail to realize is that life, civilization, government, and humanity is not a math problem. There is no one simple formula that can be used by every country that deals with all the problems. Therefore, in the case of religion, I never impose my religion on others. If our morals contradict each other, then it is just a difference of opinion. However, in case of such controversial topics which should be left up to the person not the government (i.e. abortion, homosexual marriage), I refuse to believe that a governing body can tell that person how to live. As of war. Your theory on Nazi Germany is ridiculous. Any reasonable person would admit that Nazi Germany and their atrocities were a necessary threat that had to be dealt with. Although, the US treatment of Japanese-Americans was also an atrocity. Many of times, it is the US's imperialistic manner which angers the rest of the world. You don't see a large terrorist attack in Ireland (other than the IRA) committed by Islamic Fundamentalists. So, why our culture but not many other European cultures? For that, you must look at the foreign policy and "we're right" manner of America. It is quite possible for a reasonable person to objectively look at the situation and actually come to the conclusion that America is partially to blame too, or does that make you unpatriotic? |
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:00pm
|
First of all, OS... good to see you're still around. I haven't been on for a Loooong time. And last I'd heard you had been kicked from the forum.
Alright, down to business... The political divisions in your country are more dramatic now than I think they have ever been, with each side taking fairly extreme stances. I think the solution to the issues you've brought up lie somewhere in between the positions that Republicans and Democrats have sandbagged and begun fighting over in earnest. The USA could be so much better if it weren't for the narrowmindedness of people like Ann Coulter. If you only surround yourself with people who agree with you, you grow ignorant and resentful of outside opinion... no one can grow or adapt and stay sharp in such a situation. This goes for both sides... although at the same time, there's merit on both sides as well. As far as beliefs, either political or religious are concerned... if you can live and let live... you're a step ahead. Let the majority rule, as mandated by the very concept of democracy. And in a political system like that, to impose a belief system on anyone is fairly anathema to the whole point. Which is why the state and religion are to be kept seperate, or "Athiestic" as you say. If you want an outside view, here I am. I think that you may be blinded by the beliefs of a few Middle Eastern fanatics. The entire Islamic world does not wish death upon the "Great Satan" of the USA. In fact the majority of muslims are hardly any different from the majority of Catholics... their religious beliefs are not the problem. The problem is political. The Saudi Royal family despite being islamic is not well-liked in the eyes of fanatics; neither are the leaders of Egypt. The Shi'ites, and the Sunnis are constantly at each others throats throughout the world. The Iraqi insurgence is being carried out partially because of this feud between those who have different interpretations of Mohammed's teachings... as such, no matter what the military leaders conducting the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq do, there are always going to be reasons for one group of people to want to avoid the upcoming elections: the Shi'ites are going to win it. There are thousands of muslims living within western countries, and they are generally peace-loving people who are just as appalled at the use of terrorism as you or I. The fact that thousands of them exist happily within the social structure that we consider to be "normal" and are perfectly content with it is an indication that it has nothing to do with their religion. There are social systems in place in many muslim countries that are really not that different from what we live in, so it's not a social thing either. Are there Islamic Terrorists who dream about splashing joyously in rivers of western blood? Of course... but you can't say that 1.6 Billion muslims in the world are ALL terrorists, or that they ALL want to see the west fall and the world retreat back into the 7th century... Should war be made on the terrorists? You bet... no one disagrees with that. I think that the debate is about the best way to go about doing that... Topple sovereign governments? Maybe in some cases... but in all cases? Probably not... because there comes a point where it stops looking like self-defense and starts looking like "blood for oil".... regardless of the reasons given. And like it or not, we all live on the same planet, and sooner or later we're going to have to learn to get along. And with that... I'll take my leave... I've got stuff to do. ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |
Posted By: tippy_182
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:02pm
I may be wrong, but I thing thats what he was stating and Germany. The needed to be dealt with. I think he was taking the liberal point of view in order to show a point. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:03pm
|
That is a very good, thoughtful post, Bravo. I understand that Tippy, my point was that he was trying to say that the majority liberal view was that we should not have dealt with Germany. That's ridiculous because he's trying to compare the threat of Germany to the threat of Iraq. It's apples to oranges. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:04pm
| I got to the part where it said that "the Left and the Democrates [sic] state..." and then I stopped reading, since it is obviously just partisan drivel after that. |
Posted By: tippy_182
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:04pm
Who are you speaking to? -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:07pm
| Sorry, you posted between mine and Bravo's. |
Posted By: tippy_182
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:08pm
|
My fault, I thought you talking to me for a second........
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:12pm
|
Why ridiculus, we had no idea in 1941 or early 1942, only rumors of the death camps, no direct intelligence, Germany at the time had no way of invading America, it was a European war, none of our concern if we used today's standards of the left.
Japanese expansion alone was by todays standards also no reason for America to intervene, and by todays standards was the loss of @2200 Americans at Pearl Harbor worth the eventual American and Japanese death numbers and destruction of thier ancient society and social structure. As for terrorist activity in europe, the bombings in Spain and France by Islamic radical factions, to by terror disuade the populace on any action that would hurt the radical cause. Do you no beleive that the 16th century treatment of the populace of Afganistan by the Radical Taliban Regime not cause for concern, and or change based on the World War 2 war on Germany example. Do you not believe that the treatment of the majority of the Iraqi people by the ruling Sunni Regime under Saddam not also cause for concern. Illregardless of the WMD issue, does our moral stance not in itself see it as evil and oppressive and something we must take a stand on. And if we saved one or thousands from the attrocities of the Saddam regime, is it worth it in a moral sense. Can you stand by and watch a group of thugs mug an older lady and do nothing but complain that the police can do nothing immediately and society did nothing to prevent this action, or will you be moved to in some way means or form attempt to stop the assault at that moment. That is the difference, many of us will intercede when we see a wrong, be it on our streets, or in the world, illregardless of our personal safety and or the opinions of others or thier version of history. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:15pm
|
I should have stopped there too Clark. As to the mugging of an old lady part? Where do you get the idea that I wouldn't step in. Besides the fact that I am already a law enforcement officer, if I was only a civillian of course I would step in. You're generalizations of liberals is astounding and useless to combat against. I'm sure the right would get pretty angry if I generalized them as gun-toting racist bible thumpers, but of course I have respect for others. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:22pm
|
But don't the majority here see myself as well as others with "Jesus Land" beliefs as differant and to be ridiculed and as out of what the mainstream sees as the majority belief here.
As many here expound the radical views of the left on our President in a totally demeaning fashion, to defend him and his administration is by many here seen as ridiculus, for all of Americas faults are and can be dirctly attributed to George Bush personally, not congress, right of left, not the poulace, one man, is the root of America's evil in their eyes. And only their view is to be considered as correct. To desent is an Americans right, -------------
|
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:24pm
|
Old soldier put it best I think on the religion aspects. If I'm not mistaken, this is the second arguement on that matter[slightly different issues though] in 3ish days. I totally agree. We tried to be more than reasonable, well not we as in America but as allies, with hitler with appeasement by sacrificing smaller countries. These are the same europeans that call us imperialistic and self-centered. Clark Kent Wrote: "I got to the part where it said that "the Left and the Democrates [sic] state..." and then I stopped reading, since it is obviously just partisan drivel after that." If you don't agree with him, then stand up for it. Don't wait for someone to come along and take up your cause. Say what you think instead of "its obviously partisan." Reasons might just help your agenda. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:25pm
|
If we keep skipping around here maybe we'll cross paths. I know that to make fun of him is the "cool thing," the point I was making was your overgeneralization of the democrats. You ask questions that do not need to be answered by one side because both would agree. I can't even find a point yet. |
Posted By: Panda Man
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:28pm
OS Can I have ur Baby? 
|
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:31pm
Why would I get mad? That's a complement where I come from. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:34pm
| Haha, okay then. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:36pm
Which cause or agenda is it exactly you want me to stand up for? And did I say that I didn't agree with OS?
|
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 12:36pm
|
Speculation about historical events isn't really going to provide anyone here the proper context to view the events of the current world.
You can say "what if?" until you're blue in the face and you will still have not managed to come to any sort of reasoning about the events of today. The past is the past, The Second World War is long over, and the geopolitical climate of the globe has undergone a few major changes since then. What is this post really about? It's not about morality, or intercession. There are countless wars, and oppressive regimes that no one gives a second glance at when they see a blurb about it at the bottom of page 10 of the paper. Some of these horrible things in the world have been going on for as long as anyone can rememeber, and human rights abuses go on all the time in many countries without so much as an embargo threatened at them... And I firmly believe that there are situations in the world where rough men with automatic weapons is the perfect solution. Darfur is a perfect example... but the world sat by, and watched as 100,000 thousand people died, 1.5 million were displaced, and terrorized, and rape became an epidemic. Governments are all about the opinions of others or their version of history. And there are many instances of a government doing bad things or condoning bad things because it's more popular to not do anything. Rarely are governments idealistic. Many of us, individually, will intercede when we see a wrong... but many will not. Let us not forget about Kitty Genovese. ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |
Posted By: TheHoff
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 2:16pm
It sure didn't sound like it. And as far as a cause or agenda, whatever one you want. That's just it man, you said I quit reading because it is obviously a political drivel. So what makes it not worth reading in your opinion? There's your post. My agenda is to promote nationalism, acceptance of creationism, and acceptance of the 2nd amendment. Anti-left wing topics are in my ballpark and if I saw something I didn't agree with, like anti-gun, I'd post my opinion. It just makes since to me if you are going to post, let it be in response to the topic. Thats all. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 2:50pm
|
You guys that are saying just a few muslim terrorist should watch a movie called "In the name of God:Scenes from the Extreme." In it it shows people cutting thier heads and slapping it to make it bleed and they run around saying death to america bleeding all over themselves. BUT it also shows muslims saying that jihad is not about war. And that Islam means peace. Its a good movie ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: fractus.scud
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:07pm
|
I can give you verses from the Koran that all Islamic people believe in that shows it's not peacefull at all. I'll post that soon.
------------- 
Benny go home! |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:11pm
|
Ile give you a muslim to talk to.
And you can twist the Qui'ran or the Bible anyway you want. For instance, God told David to kill all the muslims because they were practicing the faith wrong. He started but never finished. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:11pm
My point was that after reading the irrational and idiotic intro, it was obvious that the rest of the post would also be irrational and idiotic, and therefore a waste of my time. I therefore stopped reading, and still have not read the original post. "The Left/Right states ..." is not only an obscene generalization, but usually also de facto evidence of an "us vs. them" approach to life and politics that I abhor, and which almost always leads to a completely unfruitful discussion. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:13pm
Do you think I can find some verses from the Bible that shows that Christianity is not peaceful at all? |
Posted By: MROD
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:14pm
|
And it is the longest one ever. ------------- I need to find smaller pictures for my profile. |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:31pm
|
wow, i didnt realise that all "left wing" people are atheist, peace freaks that complain and don't do anyting for themselves.
How is atheism being forced on you? You can worship what ever religion you want, but dont make ME say YOUR god in a pledge. Would you put up with it if it said Allah on our money or in the pledge? or how about Zeus or Budda? and if we have to step in and stop atrocities, then shouldn't we shut down Nike and Coca-cola for the atrocities that they commit to their workers in Third World Countries? If we want freedom for everyone, then how come we decided to go into Chile and overthrow a DEMOCRACTILY ELECTED socialist president? ------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:35pm
|
Because this country was founded in the name of god like it or not. The framers of the constitution where all white christian men. Pilgrams came here for reliogious feedom. They were christian. That is why it say "In god we trust." And "Nation under god" ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:38pm
so where's mine? and if they were all white christian men who wanted their beliefs forced on others, why did they write that whole "Seperation of Church and State"? guess they were just kidding..  -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:40pm
|
Maybe, but which god? Hmm?
No, they were not. But even if they were, does that mean that women and non-whites should have fewer rights than whites and men? That's the way it was originally, but now women and blacks can vote. Shouldn't we let atheists play also?
Arguable.
Very arguable. As to "one nation under God" in the Pledge, that was of course added only a few decades ago. The original Pledge did not mention god at all... |
Posted By: DrunkDriver
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:49pm
|
Good thing I am a white Catholic man, unless the middle east has there way. ------------- http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=260991706090alb8rs.jpg"> 
|
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:54pm
funny you say that.......cuz it seems like if you are of mid-eastern decent, the white religious population thinks its ok to check on everything you are doing or invade your country "because you might be a threat" -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 3:59pm
seperation of church and state means that they cannot endorse any religion. God does not single out any religion over the other. Its just god. Not a christian god. Not a muslim god. Just God. And you can be atheist all you want. Doesnt bother me any. But its on the money because god played a large part in life back then. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:03pm
| God is not mentioned in the constitution... |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:06pm
|
I like history, too. The last democratic nation to pre-emptively attack a soveriegn nation was when Athens attacked Sicily. It was 416 B.C. Quite a long time between then and now, but the lesson was basically the same. Athens got their heads handed to them and their decline as a world power began. Now, on to the middle east.... Ever hear of the Retreat of the 10,000? It was during the Pelopennesian War when a magnificently powerful army of Greeks swept through the area, lost their paymaster who got killed and then tried to retreat through northern Iraq to colonies in the north. Guess what happened? They got boulders rolled down upon them from the indigenous peoples there, lost many of their magnificent soldiers and couldn't get out of there fast enough. History, gotta love it... |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:06pm
but beleiving in a God IS a religion, just not a specific one. i choose not to believe in one. i'm not forcing my religion on you, i'm just pointing out one of the many hypocracies. -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:09pm
So? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:11pm
It says they cannot support any religion over another. And they didnt. In supporting they mean give money to. For instance, New york cannot provide bussing for students going to a secular school. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Barretm82
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:14pm
Just wondering Dune, Have you asked yourself why the U.S. sat on the sidelines for two years, while Canadians fought and died if it was so obvious. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:19pm
|
Referring to this statement:
My point being that "Just God" does not get special treatment over "no god" in the Constitution.
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 4:22pm
|
Not true. This is the first part of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Doesn't say "preferential treatment". It says AN establishment. Besides, the Supreme Court has spent the last 200+ years explaining how this means that the government cannot inject "just god" into anything.
|
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 8:30pm
I think you may have overlooked the 6-Day War in 1967. Israel pre-empted an attack by 5 countries, knocked off every single one of them at the same time, redrew it's borders to the current map, setting the current climate for Palestinian and Israeli relations... the palestinians had evacuated much of what is now the "occupied territories" in the hopes that 5 countries of their muslim brothers would destroy Israel, and give them a country. They lost the gamble, and have been sore losers about it ever since. Etc, etc, etc,.... ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |
Posted By: The Veteren
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 8:59pm
|
In all of history there has been more accomplished with violence or the threat thereof. If america doesn't grow some balls it will fall and we will no longer be a superpower. The war on terrorism is a war of survival and if we dont start cowboy'n the **edited** up we will regret it. The liberals, what few there are now, are ignorant. There socialist beliefs do not work in the real world. Notice I say liberal not democrat. The Liberals are holding back this country by any means possible. They dont want us to win. Because losers are the only ones that negotiate. Thats what they want. Believe it or not I look at both sides of opinions. But, on this subject there is no compromise. The Liberals way of running this war would never succeed and would just send us spiraling out of control into a even bigger bloodbath as the terrorists would kill americans at home untill they got tired of it. ------------- M98 14" tear drop expansion chamber Evo II Rocket cock star bolt and other mods |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 9:05pm
| *pointedly ignoring idiotic rant, waiting for brains to return to thread* |
Posted By: The Veteren
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 9:20pm
|
I know what you want hear..... There is no doubt we can negotiate with fanatical jihadists because they are really nice people. Violence is never the awnser. One man porking another man is natural. Why isn't america a communism, it's a good idea. People need to start driving cars that run off of vegetable oil. John Kerry won the election, Bush stole it from him in Ohio. WTF ever, just becuse you dont like what you hear it automatically becomes ranting. That makes sense, not. And to Judge my intelligence is very stupid on your part. ------------- M98 14" tear drop expansion chamber Evo II Rocket cock star bolt and other mods |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 9:40pm
Democratic nations attacked Israel? |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 14 January 2005 at 10:04pm
Apparently you don't... |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 12:39am
It's all political. It always is. I see that the Canadians gave their lives and that is respectable. However, the point was to dispute OS's ridiculous generalization of liberal's like we disagree with all military actions. We only diagree with the ones that our public official lies about to the people, and then makes up an excuse to be there after the first has failed. |
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 1:02am
Now how is that even close to what I said? You were talking about democratic countries per-emptively attacking another soveriegn nation. I just gave an example that was much more recent than 416 BC that had completely different consequences; my point being, that you can't paint a pre-emptive strike with a generalality, because they aren't all the same. That was my point, this time... but regardless, we all seem to have lost sight of the original post. And Veteran? The irony of your posts is astounding... ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 3:29am
I can do better. I can show verses that seem to be instructions to kill your own children. Taken out of context, you can twist anything around the wrong way. I haven't ever read the Quran indepth, but from what I've seen the people using it to endorse their anti-Christian/American/Western/whatever views are just as whacked out as those who thought the Bible endorsed the Crusades.
Separation of Church and State is not in any of our documents - not the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, nothing. I have an interesting viewpoint on the First Amendment, though. I always think of it as 'establishment is a verb', and so instead of: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment (pre-existing institution) of religion... I read it as: Congress shall make no law respecting the creation of a state religion. But that's me and apparently very few people have bothered to think this way for the last 200 years or so, and so now I'm going to get shouted down by everyone going 'lol teh constitution sez god esh teh bad'. ------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die. 
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 4:39am
|
Am I the only one who finds it really, really hard to take OS' points
seriously when the majority of the words are misspelled? It's like he
and Bush went to the same elementary school or something.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 7:35am
| Senn, I was going to write something sarcastic in this post, but you would be mean to me again. |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 8:15am
Didn't that happen after Egypt and Syria invaded Israel a whopping 300 yards? ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 8:17am
What is the last time Switzerland was embroiled in a bloodbath, ahem? ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 8:18am
|
*edited out of courtesy* mods-delete at your convenience ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 8:25am
|
Who exactly are the evil pacifist liberals that you all keep talking about? I don't know them. I know a lot of people who think that attacking Afghanistan was right and Iraq wrong. They also go to church (conservative values) , are veterans (not pacifists), believe in the death penalty, right to life, and concealed carry. But because they don't agree with everything that the republican party does, they are LIBERAL. Liberal (definition): ability to reason without guidance. [I only have about 30 minutes before and after work to get caught up, hence the string of postings.] ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Badsmitty
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 8:52am
| ^^^^ Good Lord, goodsmitty. You don't even know how to spell Librawl in the first place. They're the ones who unsupport the troops. Thes Librawls never fight for nothin' cept pinko commie things like medkul kair fur peepul, the rite fur ther sleezy wemun to kill ther babees, Civul rites and unMerkun stuf lik that. Heck they evun dont lik NASCAR! |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 10:28am
|
lol - It sure dosn't help... But it does make me giggle. :)
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 12:25pm
|
Hes probly twice your age. I doubt he writes his posts ahead of time. Edits them. Makes sure they make you happy. Then copies them to the forum. Why would he care if it has perfect spelling? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: MROD
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 1:23pm
|
Badsmitty, with your definitionI hope to God you don't consider liberal and democrat to be one and the same.
That's cuz NASCR is a redneck sport that has slowly spread to the othe parts of the nation. ------------- I need to find smaller pictures for my profile. |
Posted By: AdmiralSenn
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 4:29pm
Suck it up, you baby. 
------------- Is God real? You'll find out when you die.
Okay, I don't have a clever signature zinger. So sue me. |
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 15 January 2005 at 6:47pm
There are a lot of people who are twice my age. Consistently misspelling simple words is usually not a matter of rushing a post; note that Oldsoldier will only enter this forum maybe once every couple of months to throw in some Right-wing talking head's propoganda, so I don't think he could be that rushed or apathetic as to the quality of that post. In a general sense the grammar and spelling of posts does not usually say anything concerning the message presented because we can simply "translate" in our heads. But it does say a great deal about the person presenting the message. Now, concerning the main question: I cannot speak for the hive-minded Left that you speak of, but I can speak for myself. I personally believe that if a family wants to raise its children with certain religious values, that is absolutely fine. Christian families should be allowed to raise their children as Christians, Jewish families as Jews, Buddhist families as Buddhists, and atheist families as atheists. I think that this belief is mostly accepted among Americans. When it comes to the government, however, this establishment should not be involved in "raising" the nation's children or "converting" the population in any way. If I were to form a summer camp and simply not involve God in any of its activities, would I then be advocating atheism? No, of course not. Just because we're not doing Bible study doesn't make the camp an atheist one. On the other hand, if I were to inform all the kids at my camp that God does not exist, then I would be advocating atheism. And by the same logic, if I were to force all the kids at that same camp to pray the Our Father at every meal, then I would be advocating Christianity. Just apply that above example to the larger scale--all of the government--and there you have my understanding of the situation. I honestly would not be for advocating atheism, Christianity, or any religion to anyone. "To each his own," is an old aphorism that I believe in strongly. And that's my answer. *Because (while I am against the war in Iraq) I don't have "Utopian" views in the way that OldSoldier implies, I'm only answering the first question that talks about the "impsosing [sic]" of religious beliefs. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 3:09am
|
Have you ever noticed that when you post an intelligent, anti Iraq-war comment that the thread dies. It always starts out with an inflammatory right-wing statement and ends with an intelligent moderate reply. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 11:14am
|
Well, I did my best to do that on the first page, and all I managed to do was partially derail the conversation.
This entire thread is typical of how every single political/religious/current-events thread has turned out for years.... I guess things haven't changed as much as I thought. Although I've noted that nearly everyone who replied has a username that I recognize... so maybe I'm wrong. ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 4:57pm
the "liberal" way of running this war would never succed, you are correct. only because there WOULDNT BE A WAR GOING ON. and the "terrorists" might not feel like killing americans if we didn't act like we are so much better than anyone else because we are americans and we get what we want when we want because we want it. P.S. just so nobody tries to twist my words arounds and make it sound like i support terrorism, 9/11 was a terrible thing that never should have happened. however, think of the all the people who have been trampled on "in America's best interests" ya know, Money, Oil, Globalization, etc. -------------
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 6:35pm
|
So... OS... i thought you were gonna stay out of political arguments on
the forum. I mean, you gave a canadian a strike for saying that
"bush sucks." You do realize that you aren't right all the time
and not everyone must think the same way as you. let people think
what they want to think I voted for kerry if you must know... and i'm part of the liberal student organization at my school... i joined just to get more involved in politics. if you want to criticize me for that feel free. I don't really care. but i voted the way i voted because of a few choice issues. he didn't get elected and i'm not complaining... The political threads need to get the hell out of this forum. and like i said i remember you saying that you'd stay out of these threads, but it just looks like your just adding to the fire. too bad you came back |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 8:36pm
|
he gave a canadian a strike for saying bush sucks? wow....i see that facism is starting to reign supreme... -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 9:34pm
| I don't think OS gets to hand out strikes... seeing as how he isn't a mod. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 10:02pm
|
Thats what i was thinking. How would he give someone a strike. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 10:16pm
|
Sorry that I am not as "edjumacated" as all you college elite types, and since I am only a resident of "Jesus Land", along with one of the totally misguided red staters, and since it seems that it is easier for most on the left and here on the forum to kill the messenger, and make statements against the person, than to address the message, here is a challenge for you.
If we are as unbiased as we so state and balanced in our ideals, for all our resident leftists, just give me an example of a positive "Bush" ideal or program during his administration, or is it all as bad as most of you make it out or want it to be. By the way I am not nor do I ever wish to be a mod here, so I do not hand out strikes............... -------------
|
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 10:39pm
Attempting to ban abortion. That was easy. ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: †Sniper†
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 10:44pm
|
The attempted ban of abortion is completely subjective as to whether it is good or bad. |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 10:55pm
i dunno about programs, i'm sure i could find one or two that i agree with i am pleased with the $350 million in aid to the tsunami victims, and i was very impressed that Bush spoke at Clinton's library. As much of a failure as "no child left behind" is, its at least good that he tried to help with education... -------------
|
Posted By: Ejp414
Date Posted: 16 January 2005 at 11:22pm
Of course it is. Everything that's a controversial debate is that way, otherwise people wouldn't be arguing over it all across the country, right? ------------- __________________ __________________ |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 17 January 2005 at 1:20am
| I hated the attempt to ban abortion. However, if I had to pick one thing I think he had done right....I'd say his attempt to put more police officers on the streets. |
Posted By: Bravo2ZERO
Date Posted: 17 January 2005 at 2:38pm
|
Ha... I'm like a paramedic for this thread.
Procarbinefreak, Political debates in this forum are some of the rare things worth reading. I don't care about the videogames or music that everyone else is posting about... and these sorts of discussions actually force people to think critically. Either way you cut it, that's a good thing. If you can't counter a point made by someone who you think may be a "facist" then maybe you should re-evaluate the position he's taking. At the very least he's stirring the pot and injecting some much-needed intelligent debate into a forum full of inane garbage. As far as spelling mistakes and being "edjumacated"... while I can see how it doesn't win any points with people that OS sometimes makes mistakes, but really, he got his point across. Give the guy a break... he's not making mistakes because he's typing in msn-speak. And he's a HECK of a lot better than many people on this forum. Not that I agree with him. That being said; I still haven't seen a really decent rebuff from the rightwing to my first post in this thread. ------------- Hammerheads: Search and Destroy |