DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on February 04, 2008, 12:46:34 PM
-
Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | 2/4/2008
Barack Obama, in a way that recalls John F. Kennedy, a politician to whom he's frequently compared, has carefully controlled and burnished his image to create the impression of an independent figure, free from dogma and ideological entanglements. But there is one man who threatens to undermine Obama's appealing narrative as a man above the ugly quarrels and divisive partisanship of the past: his longtime pastor and spiritual adviser, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
On March 1, 1972, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became the pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC), a position he still holds to this day. Because he has been a revered figure in the life of presidential aspirant Barack Obama for two decades, Wright's political views, which he commonly draws from the tenets of liberation theology, are worthy of some scrutiny?if only to shed light on the teachings that have had enough resonance to retain Obama as a TUCC congregant since 1988. So great is Obama's respect for Wright, that the former sought the Reverend's counsel before formally declaring his candidacy for U.S. President. Moreover, Obama and his wife selected Wright to perform their wedding ceremony and to baptize their two daughters. These are honors of considerable magnitude, and it is reasonable to speculate that if we learn more about Rev. Wright, we may gain some insight into the personal qualities and belief systems Barack Obama holds in high regard.
When we read the writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright, we quickly notice his unmistakable conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!... We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
In a similar spirit, Wright laments "the social order under which we [blacks] live, under which we suffer, under which we are killed."[1] Depicting blacks as a politically powerless demographic, he complains that "African Americans don't run anything in the Capital except elevators."[2] On its website, Wright's church portrays black people as victims who are still burdened by the legacy of their "pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism," and who must pray for "the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people."
Wright detects what he views as racism in virtually every facet of American life. In the business world, for instance, he attributes the high unemployment rate of African Americans to "the fact that they are black."[3] Vis-?-vis the criminal justice system, he similarly explains that "the brothers are in prison" largely because of their skin color. "Consider the 'three strikes law,'" he elaborates. "There is a higher jail sentencing for crack than for cocaine because more African Americans get crack than do cocaine."[4] Notwithstanding Wright's implication that the harsh anti-crack penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, the Congressional Record shows that such was not at all the case. In 1986, when the strict, federal anti-crack legislation was being debated, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)?deeply concerned about the degree to which crack was decimating the black community?strongly supported the legislation and actually pressed for even harsher penalties. In fact, a few years earlier CBC members had pushed President Reagan to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy.[5]
In Wright's calculus, white America's bigotry is to blame not only for whatever ills continue to plague the black community, but also for our country's conflicts with other nations. "In the 21st century," says Wright, "white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."
Remarkably, no mention of jihad?the ageless Muslim tradition of aggressive, permanent warfare whose ultimate aim is to achieve Islam's dominion over the human race at large?managed to find its way into Wright's analysis. Rather, he assured us that the 9/11 atrocities were ultimately traceable to the doorstep of U.S. provocations. In fact, Wright apparently sees no reason to suspect that Islam may be incompatible in any way with Western traditions. "Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize," he has written. "Islam comes out of Christianity."[6]
Apart from America's purported racism, Wright also despises the nation's capitalist economic structure, viewing it as a breeding ground for all manner of injustice. "Capitalism as made manifest in the 'New World,'" says Wright, "depended upon slave labor (by African slaves), and it is only maintained by keeping the 'Two-Thirds World' under oppression."[7] This anti-capitalist perspective is further reflected in TUCC's "10-point vision," whose ideals include the cultivation of "a congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY." Dispelling any doubt that this is a reference to socialism and the wholesale redistribution of wealth, the TUCC mission statement plainly declares its goal of helping "the less fortunate to become agents of change for God who is not pleased with America's economic mal-distribution!"
This view is entirely consistent with Rev. Wright's devotion to the tenets of liberation theology, which is essentially Marxism dressed up as Christianity. Devised by Cold War-era theologians, it teaches that the gospels of Jesus can be understood only as calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today's poor will unseat their "oppressors" and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations. An extension of this paradigm is black liberation theology, which seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity. Wright's mentor in this discipline is James Cone, author of the landmark text Black Power and Black Theology. Arguing that Christianity has been used by white society as an opiate of the (black) masses, Cone asserts that the destitute "are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few," and that "[n]o one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one's solidarity with victims."
Many of Wright's condemnations of America are echoed in his denunciations of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for imposing "injustice and ? racism" on the Palestinians. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of "white racism." Likening Israel's treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct business in, or with, Israel.
Given Wright's obvious low regard for the U.S. and Israel, it is by no means surprising that he reserves some of his deepest respect for the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. "When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens," says Wright. "Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen ? His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest. Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience. His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."
Wright's paean to Farrakhan was parroted in the November/December issue of TUCC's bimonthly magazine, the Trumpet, which featured an interview with the NOI "icon" who, according to the publication, "truly epitomized greatness." "Because of the Minister's influence in the African American community," the Trumpet announced that it was honoring him with an "Empowerment Award" as a "fitting tribute for a storied life well lived."
This seems an odd distinction to confer upon someone whose anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic statements are numerous. For example, in 1996 Farrakhan told a Tehran newspaper that God would "bestow upon Muslims" the honor of "destroy[ing] America." In February 1998, he sent a cordial and supportive letter to Saddam Hussein, calling him a "visionary" who had earned the Iraqi people's "love," and whose demise would "mean a setback for the goal of unity [among Muslims]." In July 2002, he declared that America, "with blood dripping from [its] hands," had no moral authority by which to overthrow Saddam. In February 2005, he condemned the United States for waging a war "against Islam," adding: "[T]here's no way that I, as a Muslim, could countenance my children or grandchildren fighting a war against fellow believers in any part of the world."
Farrakhan also has a long, well-documented history of venom-laced references to the white "blue-eyed devils" and Jewish "bloodsuckers" who purportedly decimate America's black communities from coast to coast. Moreover, he has referred to white people as "the skunks of the planet."
On a 1984 trip to meet with the Libyan dictator (and America's arch enemy) Muammar Qadhafi, Farrakhan was accompanied by none other than Jeremiah A. Wright.
Farrakhan has long considered Qadhafi to be his trusted "friend," "brother," and "fellow struggler in the cause of liberation for our people." In 1996, the NOI leader formed a partnership with Qadhafi, who pledged $1 billion to help Farrakhan develop a Muslim political lobby in the U.S. Said Qadhafi: "We agreed with Louis Farrakhan and his delegation to mobilize in a legal and legitimate form the oppressed minorities?and at their forefront the blacks, Arab Muslims and Red Indians?for they play an important role in American political life and have a weight in U.S. elections." "Our confrontation with America," added Qadhafi, "was [previously] like a fight against a fortress from outside, and today [with the NOI alliance] we found a breach to enter into this fortress and confront it."
Farrakhan's October 16, 1995 Million Man March ranks among the events about which Rev. Wright has written most extensively and passionately. Wright attended the rally with his son, and has described it as "a once in a lifetime, amazing experience."[8] When a number of prominent African Americans counseled fellow blacks to boycott the demonstration because of Farrakhan's well-documented history of hateful rhetoric, Wright derided those critics as "'Negro' leaders,"[9] "'colored' leaders," "Oreos," and "house niggras"[10] whose most noteworthy trait was their contemptible "Uncle Tomism."[11] "There are a whole boat load of 'darkies' who think in white supremacist terms," added Wright. "? Some 'darkies' think white women are superior to black women?. Some 'darkies' think white lawyers are superior to black lawyers. Some 'darkies' think white pastors are better than black pastors. There are a whole boatload of 'darkies' who think anything white and everyone white is better than whatever it is black people have."[12]
In the book titled When Black Men Stand up for God, a collection of sermons and reflections on the Million Man March, Wright identifies Kwanzaa founder Maulana Karenga as an attendee of the rally.[13] In the end notes that follow a transcript of one of Wright's sermons, Karenga is described as "an internationally acclaimed social activist and scholar in Pan African Studies"; "the founder and creator of Kwanzaa, the well-known African American holiday"; and "the director of Pan African Studies and Visiting Lecturer in Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Riverside."[14] Unmentioned is the fact that Karenga is a self-identified "African socialist" whose "Seven Principles of Blackness," which are observed during Kwanzaa, are not only the Marxist precepts of parity and proletariat unity, but are also identical to those of the 1970s domestic terrorist group, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Nor is it noted that in 1971 Karenga was convicted of torturing two women who were members of United Slaves, a black nationalist cult he had established.
On its website, Wright's church describes itself in distinctly racial terms, as being an "Unashamedly Black" congregation of "African people" who are "true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization," and who participate in TUCC's "Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."
Some have suggested that such seemingly exclusionary assertions, coupled with Wright's own racially loaded statements and his close affiliation with Farrakhan, indicate that Wright is guilty of racism. But Wright casually dismisses this charge, stating: "I get tickled every time I hear a 'Negro' call me a racist. They don't even understand how to define the word. Racism means controlling the means."[15] In other words, Wright employs a rhetorical escape hatch that permits him to evade all charges of racism simply by claiming that only the "dominant" (i.e., white) demographic is capable of such ugliness. The implication is that no deed or utterance, however hateful or vile, is egregious enough to qualify any black person as a racist; that blacks are always the victims of racism, never its perpetrators.
American voters ought to have more than a passing interest in the fact that when Barack Obama formally joined TUCC in 1991, he tacitly accepted this same Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor. Moreover, he pledged allegiance to the church's race-conscious "Black Value System" that encourages blacks to patronize black-only businesses, support black leaders, and avoid becoming "entrapped" by the pursuit of a "black middle-classness" whose ideals presumably would erode their sense of African identity and render them "captive" to white culture.
In addition, voters should examine carefully the question of whether Obama shares Wright's socialist economic preferences. They ought to be aware, for instance, that the Democratic candidate is on record as having said that his religious faith has led him to question "the idolatry of the free market." Moreover, Obama's voting record and his issue positions show him generally to favor high spending and increased government intervention in all realms of life.
When Rev. Wright's controversial statements and positions recently became more widely publicized, Obama said, "There are some things I agree with my pastor about, some things I disagree with him about." It is the duty of every American voter to determine exactly where those agreements and disagreements lie.
Notes:
[1] When Black Men Stand up for God (Chicago: African American Images), 1996, p. 17.
[2] Ibid., p. 102.
[3] Ibid., p. 17.
[4] Ibid., p. 17.
[5] John DiIulio, Jr., "My Black Crime Problem, and Ours," City Journal (Spring 1996), pp. 19-20.
[6] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 16.
[7] Blow the Trumpet in Zion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 2005, pp. 8-9.
[8] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 10.
[9] Ibid., pp. 11, 37.
[10] Ibid., p. 80.
[11] Ibid., p. 11.
[12] Ibid., p. 81.
[13] It should be noted that Wright's church has conducted Kwanzaa programs for its congregants. See When Black Men Stand up for God, p. iv.)
[14] When Black Men Stand up for God, p. 25.
[15] Ibid., p. 102.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com
-
When Obama starts quoting this guy's sillier beliefs, then it might matter. Otherwise this is just some wacko guilt by association nonsense and it is insignificant, as is most of the crap Frontpage magazine spews.
When McCain suggests universal conscription, or Mitt Romney advocates the compulsory wearing of Mormon underwear, or Huckabee insists on compulsory Baptism,then we should be wary of them as well.
But not until.
-
As I've said before, liberals/fascists out there have a literal cow when a Republican speaks at Bob Jones University. To liberals/fascists being there equates to chaining Black man to your bumper and dragging him to his death. In this case, a ultra liberal Black man belongs to a church who's leader espouses all kinds of racist ideals and this is a non issue. Remember know, the Republican speaking at Bob Jones U isn't on the board, didn't attend the University. Barrack Hussein Obama BELONGS to this Church. If he disagreed with it's teachings, he could leave. That's the nice thing about being a Protestant. You can fire the preacher, start your own church, or attend one with a less racist pastor. But Barrak Hussein Obama has belonged to this particular Church for 20 YEARS.
Does the Democratic hopeful agree with his pastor? Of course he does. If he doesn't, why is he still a parishoner?
-
As I've said before, liberals/fascists out there have a literal cow when a Republican speaks at Bob Jones University.
Rich has a very good point here. The left & MSM goes apesnot if a Republican merely speaks at a congregation with a questionable "racist center". Hell, even considering speaking gets one branded as some closet racist. With Obama, this isn't merely speaking, this is actively going to, and being a devoted member of said congregation. You think Xo would be talking about those "silly comments" Bob Jones University makes, or "goofy comments" Pat Robertson makes, and leave it at that?? I don't think so. So, why the blatant double standard?
-
Well, there is a difference.
Obama does not attend the church he attends for the same reason that Repunblican hopefuls make appearences at Bob Jones 'University'.
I would imagine that he goes there because his wife wants him to go there. This is more often than not the usual reason.
When a Republican candidate goes to pay his respects at Bob Jones 'University' it is not because he subscribes to the fundie beliefes taught there so much as an attemprt to pander to those who have said beliefs, who are aware that the rest of the country thinks they are XIV Century throwbacks.
People don't normally go to church to absorb political attitudes. Politicians go to Bob Jones to pander to those who have wacky political attitudes.
If Obama were to make a well-publisized guest appearence at Farrakhan's Mosque, that would be akin to Juniorbush or Reagan going to Bob Jones 'University', and I would most certainly see this as a stupid move.
But he isn't, and I seriously doubt that he will.
-
Well, there is a difference.
Actually, no, the circusmtances are not. 1 is perceived racist institution, 1 is considered a racist preacher. and that doesn't even address the point I made about Pat Robertson, and those who have spoken to his congregation
So, why the double standard?? Because it's a Democrat, perhaps??
Obama does not attend the church he attends for the same reason that Repunblican hopefuls make appearences at Bob Jones 'University'.
LOL......NICE rationalization effort. And obviously you know the reasons each side attends. Dems obviously attend for the most noble & spiritual of reasons, while the Republicans obviously attend for the most nefarious & racist of reasons. Thanks for helping make my point, Xo
-
>>I would imagine that he goes there because his wife wants him to go there. This is more often than not the usual reason.<<
I don' think I've ever read anything more ridiculous than this tripe. I can't even laugh at it, it's to ridiculous.
-
>>I would imagine that he goes there because his wife wants him to go there. This is more often than not the usual reason.<<
I don' think I've ever read anything more ridiculous than this tripe. I can't even laugh at it, it's to ridiculous.
Hehehehe
I liked it too.
-
>>I would imagine that he goes there because his wife wants him to go there. This is more often than not the usual reason.<<
I don' think I've ever read anything more ridiculous than this tripe. I can't even laugh at it, it's to ridiculous.
Hehehehe I liked it too.
Guilt by association apparently only applies to Republicans ;)
-
So you question that a man might choose a church because his wife likes to go there?
Perhaps you do not understand much about how decisions are made in families, especially Black families. The Church ladies are quite often a more influential force than most of the rest of the motivations put together.
You would prefer to believe that Obama actually goes because he is a zombie slave of Louis Farrakhan. Or perhaps a closet Muslim, stealthly awaiting his elections to declare Sharia Law by proclamation. Or a former Muslim renegade whose conversion to Christianity at age eleven will cause Saudi Arabia to wipe out DC because it was written thus in the Holy Q'ran.
Or perhaps because monkeys will fly out Obama's biracial, yet nonetheless swarthy buns on Inaugration Day, embarassing the USA irreparably.
-
>> Or perhaps because monkeys will fly out Obama's biracial, yet nonetheless swarthy buns on Inaugration Day ... <<
You've gone from the ridiculous to the disturbing.
-
So you question that a man might choose a church because his wife likes to go there?
No, personally, I'd question why the left excoriates any Republican that even has 3degrees of seperation from the likes of Pat Robertson or Bob Jones, yet is labled some Christian zealot/racist if they don't rebuke anything they said, or *gasp* spoke there, way back when, while Obama can go to a church who's pastor advocates precisely the opposite (black only organizations/institutions) of what MLK envisioned, where character, not skin pigment is what was important, and gets not a whiff of protestation, from the same leftists. THAT's what I'd question. And no manner of your apparent and obvious devine insight as to their motivations for going are going to change the query, since you have absolutely no blooming idea.
So, let's just allow the left's blatant hypocrisy be highlighted for all to see, on this one
-
from No Peace No Place by Jeff Greenfield (1973) - -
[quoting from a speech by Jerry Rubin]:
<<We are a new race of people . . .
<< In the 1950s it was like Pavlov's dog. All they had to do was say 'communism' and everyone salivated like a fucking dog. We don't salivate any more. We hear 'communism' and we say 'right on!' We are everything - - everything - - they say we are! I haven't had a bath for six months! My brother is a Chinese peasant and my enemy is Richard Nixon!>>
It seemed to me that Rubin rather obviously misunderstood what Pavlov had been doing in the lab - - I think he mistook the salivating of the dogs to be preparation for an attack rather than a meal - - but I thought the quote was interesting because it dealt with the same kind of smear tactics being tested by the current crop of fascists against Barak Obama. A kind of ineptly handled, out-dated smear, using scare words that were growing stale from over-use. So just as the Yippees of the 60s and 70s were not put off by routine accusations of "communism," so the code-words for anti-Semitism are losing their power to alienate the American left, due to the overuse of the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation.
In both cases, what was supposed to be a scare-word, horrifying and repulsive to an older and out-of-touch generation, actually had a kind of attraction for the younger generation that produced a reaction entirely opposite to what was intended by those who concocted the smear.
The sad fact is that to a number of savvy and concerned Americans, Louis Farrakhan, repulsive and offensive as he may be, is not nearly the threat to the nation and its institutions as are Zionist subversion and neocon influence, which have hijacked Amerikkkan foreign policy and brought U.S. prestige to its lowest levels in history.
-
<<In addition, voters should examine carefully the question of whether Obama shares Wright's socialist economic preferences. They ought to be aware, for instance, that the Democratic candidate is on record as having said that his religious faith has led him to question "the idolatry of the free market." >>
Out-ruckin-fageous!! Why, I'd NEVER vote for a man who was so luke-warm in his condemnation of capitalism!!
-
So just as the Yippees of the 60s and 70s were not put off by routine accusations of "communism," so the code-words for anti-Semitism are losing their power to alienate the American left, due to the overuse of the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation.
Kinda like Conservatism = Fascism = Amerikkkan evil. Pretty much all made mute and impotent in their overuse, by the rabid left
-
<<Kinda like Conservatism = Fascism = Amerikkkan evil. Pretty much all made mute and impotent in their overuse, by the rabid left>>
The difference being that the smear of Obama via his pastor linking him to Minister Farrakhan (and even Muammar Ghaddafi!!) is meant to alienate his supporters and falling flat on its face instead. Whereas the "fascist" label isn't meant to persuade any conservatives, it's just shorthand for leftist-to-leftist talk and a needle for any fascists who hear it. We aren't expecting to convert any fascists merely by using the term, because they're too brainwashed already for it to sink in. So we're not disappointed when it fails to convert anyone, whereas the conservatives concocted the entire ridiculous smear for the purpose of sapping Obama's support, and have to watch in chagrin as it fails.
-
<<Kinda like Conservatism = Fascism = Amerikkkan evil. Pretty much all made mute and impotent in their overuse, by the rabid left>>
The difference being that the smear of Obama via his pastor linking him to Minister Farrakhan (and even Muammar Ghaddafi!!) is meant to alienate his supporters and falling flat on its face instead.
Kinda like anyone from the south, and/or even mentions Bob Jones, is a racist Republican, an accusation falling flat on its face as well.
And if you hadn't notice, no one is "smearing" Obama. As we've noted, guilt by association is only apparently is applicable to Republicans. Getting smeared (in more ways than one), is the hypocritical left and MSM's transparent double standard, when it's one of their own who's merely associated with a racist.
-
Why assume it is conservatives who are smearing Obama?
Why isn't it Hillary?
This is the threatening black man smear. Something the Clinton's have been spanked for already.
-
<<Kinda like anyone from the south, and/or even mentions Bob Jones, is a racist Republican . . . >>
Yesss!! and . . . ?
<< . . . an accusation falling flat on its face as well.>>
only for an actual racist or fascist
<<And if you hadn't notice, no one is "smearing" Obama. >>
Coulda fooled me.
<<As we've noted, guilt by association is only apparently is applicable to Republicans. Getting smeared (in more ways than one), is the hypocritical left and MSM's transparent double standard, when it's one of their own who's merely associated with a racist.>>
Kinda hard to discuss with you, when we know about the smears on Obama but have no idea which Republican "smear victims" you're even talking about. The people they are associated with probably ARE genuine fascists, racists and anti-Semites, which is why you prefer to refer to them in generic terms rather than actually giving real names of real people.
-
<<Why assume it is conservatives who are smearing Obama?
<<Why isn't it Hillary?
<<This is the threatening black man smear. Something the Clinton's have been spanked for already.>>
Excellent point. Could well be.
-
<<Kinda like anyone from the south, and/or even mentions Bob Jones, is a racist Republican . . . . .an accusation falling flat on its face as well.>>
only for an actual racist or fascist
Or for the rationally minded.
-
You know, I forgot that the Professor, who I like and admire, is, IIRC, a Bob Jones alum, so I personally would like to apologize to him for anything that I said or implied about that university in this thread and suggest that we discontinue using it as an example. In any case, my response to sirs' post mentioning Bob Jones was made with semi-humorous intent only, more as a way of needling sirs than anything else.
Maybe sirs can find another example of liberal "smear" tactics utilizing guilt by association and corresponding to the smear (by either the conservatives or the Clintons, if there's any real difference between them) of Barak Obama.
-
Maybe sirs can find another example of liberal "smear" tactics utilizing guilt by association and corresponding to the smear (by either the conservatives or the Clintons, if there's any real difference between them) of Barak Obama.
Actually, I'll leave that tactic, guilt by association, to the left. It's apparently their bread and butter when it comes to smears and meritless accusations
-
.............another example of liberal "smear" tactics utilizing guilt by association and corresponding to the smear (by either the conservatives or the Clintons, if there's any real difference between them) of Barak Obama.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2762
-
<<So you question that a man might choose a church because his wife likes to go there?
Perhaps you do not understand much about how decisions are made in families, especially Black families.>>
Not only blacks. When I mentioned in another thread how I attend synagogue only when dragged there by my wife against my will, the Professor commented that this was also the experience of his Jewish chiropractor.
I would think it's self-evident to anyone who knows anything at all about family dynamics that it's the older women who provide the primary force for attendance at communal religious observances. I remember reading somewhere that most of the funds gathered by televangelists came from elderly black women.
In any event the whole discussion is moot, because as Obama himself says, he agrees with his pastor on some issues and disagrees with him on others. The attempt to smear Obama because of what his pastor believes or says is ludicrous. And kind of patronizing. I mean the man is definitely old enough to speak for himself.
-
<<Actually, I'll leave that tactic, guilt by association, to the left. It's apparently their bread and butter when it comes to smears and meritless accusations>>
I see. So despite "smears and meritless accusations" being the "bread and butter" of the left, you are unable to come up with any name other than Bob Jones' as an example of associations used by liberals to smear conservatives. Not even one.
I perfectly understand. Thank you.
-
I see. So despite "smears and meritless accusations" being the "bread and butter" of the left, you are unable to come up with any name other than Bob Jones' as an example of associations used by liberals to smear conservatives. Not even one.
Well, there is always "Republicans want women to die of cancer."
-
<<Well, there is always "Republicans want women to die of cancer.">>
I'm sure that there are plenty of Republicans who feel that preventing women dying from cancer is just one competing priority, the other competing priority being to ensure chaste behaviour on the part of their wives and daughters. And I'm equally sure that when it comes to choosing which priority is paramount over the other, most conservative Republicans would pick chastity over life-saving anytime. Lanya's thought-crime was probably finding an article which actually showed Republican majorities favouring chastity over female lives and using the word "want" instead of the more accurate "prefer." BFD.
-
Lanya's thought crime was that she completely misrepresented the issue.
What you do with your kids health is up to you, don't mandate needles into mine.
-
<<What you do with your kids health is up to you, don't mandate needles into mine. >.
Yeah, so whaddaya think about mandatory blood transfusions when medically necessary to save a life and the kid's Jehovah's Witnesses parents object?
-
Most medical treatments require informed consent.
The Jehovah's Witness cases are arguably a separation issue.
-
The Jehovah's Witness parent/child blood transfusion issue has already been resolved in Canada. Probably also in the U.S.A. The parent does NOT have the right to deny medically necessary treatment to the child. The basic issues are consent and conflict.
YOU don't have the right to stop ME from sticking medically necessary needles into YOUR child. (Of course, I could have said that I don't have the right to stop you from sticking medically necessary needles into my child, but it sounds better the way I said it first.)
I didn't read the article Lanya quoted from but I've seen the same kind of issue pop up elsewhee (AIDS prevention vs condom use, for example) and I've seen all too often that the religious right gets its way at the expense of the innocent victims of various diseases. I'm sure Lanya misrepresented absolutely nothing. That's just the way Repubicans are. They will always cave to the religious right where public health is concerned. They just don't give a shit, not when their ability to dictate how others must live is at stake.
-
Lanya's thought-crime was probably finding an article which actually showed Republican majorities favouring chastity over female lives and using the word "want" instead of the more accurate "prefer." BFD.
Less than 200 people (and none of them officials in the GOP) are a "Republican majority"?
What's a "Democratic majority" then?
-
<<Less than 200 people (and none of them officials in the GOP) are a "Republican majority"?>>
There are millions of Republicans (unfortunately.) How can 200 of them be a majority?
-
>>I see. So despite "smears and meritless accusations" being the "bread and butter" of the left, you are unable to come up with any name other than Bob Jones' as an example of associations used by liberals to smear conservatives. Not even one.<<
Let's see ... there's Jesus. If you associate yourself with him, the left brings out all the old standards.
Then there's Pat Roberston. He's a sure fire winner
Jerry Falwell, when he was alive anyway.
The Catholic Church. If your Catholic, you lefties simply can't resist play the "pedophile" priest card. Also associating yourself with the Church get's you branded a sexual devient because of the church' stance on birth control and abortion.
Does that satisfy you Uncle Mike?
-
There are millions of Republicans (unfortunately.) How can 200 of them be a majority?
I don't know. You're the one that claimed that the group of less than 200 that was protesting mandatory vaccinations was a "Republican majority." You explain it to me.
-
You've gone from the ridiculous to the disturbing.
Ok, I couldn't stop laughing when I read this, Rich.
again......Kettle, Pot on line 2.
ROLLIN' on FL!!
-
Cynthia, so like most liberals, you'll defend anything. Stunning.
I suggst you stick to what you're good and and stay on the porch sweetheart.
-
YOU don't have the right to stop ME from sticking medically necessary needles into YOUR child.
......................................
not when their ability to dictate how others must live is at stake.
So having the right to tell Jehovah's witnesses what they must do is not an example of dictating to others?
-
<<Does that satisfy you Uncle Mike?>>
Not in the least. I already had a list of Republican bad guys and crazies, thank you.
What I needed was a list of Republicans who had been smeared by liberals for associating with the wackos you named, the same way that Obama was smeared for his association with Wright and (one degree removed) Farrakhan and (two degrees removed) Ghaddafi and (three degrees removed) Satan himself.
-
<<Does that satisfy you Uncle Mike?>>
Not in the least. I already had a list of Republican bad guys and crazies, thank you.
What I needed was a list of Republicans who had been smeared by liberals for associating with the wackos you named, the same way that Obama was smeared for his association with Wright and (one degree removed) Farrakhan and (two degrees removed) Ghaddafi and (three degrees removed) Satan himself.
All right , how many degrees seaprate Ronald Reagan from any real racist ?
His Philidelphia speech was suppoedly in code that racists would understand and no one elese .
Are Racists better at code than anyone elese?
-
A racist speaking in racist code is simply a racist.
What I asked for was a list of conservatives tarred with guilt by association. Supposedly this is the liberals' stock in trade, so there should be plenty of examples. Which conservative did the liberals tar with guilt because he or she associated with any of the fascist icons that Rich offered up?
-
Ronald Reagan is deceased. You are beating a dead cow with a stick.
Reagan was on pretty good terms with Jesse Helms, as close to a racist as anyone who does not regularly don his bedclothing and strut about with a cross to burn.
-
Ronald Reagan is deceased. You are beating a dead cow with a stick.
Reagan was on pretty good terms with Jesse Helms, as close to a racist as anyone who does not regularly don his bedclothing and strut about with a cross to burn.
Thank you XO this appears to be the sort of thing that MT was looking for , add to this evey speaker who has ever spoken at Bob Jones University , that is about the only way I ever hear of BJU.
I wish that there was a code for conservatives , but only their accusers seem to know about it.
-
Reagan? Shit, don't get me started. Reagan prayed in a Nazi cemetery over the graves of dead SS troopers and claimed that they too were victims of the Holocaust. Reagan WAS a fascist. He supported the fascist death squads of Central America. In one quote he actually said that the Nicaraguan Contras were "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."
Reagan is not an example of being tarred with guilt by association. Reagan was a fucking NAZI and his associations simply prove it.
-
>>... as close to a racist as anyone who does not regularly don his bedclothing and strut about with a cross to burn.<<
Like Senator Byrd presume.
::)
-
Cynthia, so like most liberals, you'll defend anything. Stunning.
I suggst you stick to what you're good and and stay on the porch sweetheart.
Sorry, Rich...couldn't help but chuckle. You have to admit sometimes you go straight to the hard core "disturbing' in your posts.
Ok...back to the rockie on my porch...d'oh.
-
Reagan? Shit, don't get me started. Reagan prayed in a Nazi cemetery over the graves of dead SS troopers and claimed that they too were victims of the Holocaust. Reagan WAS a fascist. He supported the fascist death squads of Central America. In one quote he actually said that the Nicaraguan Contras were "the equivalent of our Founding Fathers."
Reagan is not an example of being tarred with guilt by association. Reagan was a fucking NAZI and his associations simply prove it.
So here you go , association is proof.
You do it so smoothly you are unaware of it yourself .
Reagan was an FDR voter , reconcileing with former enmies is a better idea than preserveing enimnity , the visit to the SS graveyard was a good idea. The villans of WWII invested their all in a lie that they beleived , they died in ignorance and guilt , or lived in guilt and injury. They ,like we ,all die eventually but worse off than ordinary people for the guilt they were tricked into accepting.
-
Go away Cynthia.
-
<<Reagan was an FDR voter , reconcileing with former enmies is a better idea than preserveing enimnity>>
Wow, are you ever underinformed about Reagan. While still a Democrat, Reagan used his position as President of the Screen Actors Guild to spy on the members of his own union and report on their communistic tendencies to the FBI. He was basically a fink, drifted from there into right-wing politics, much as Hitler, after the end of WWI, became an Army spy against left-wing movements, from where he naturally drifted into right-wing politics.
""the visit to the SS graveyard was a good idea. ""
Sure, if you're a Nazi.
"The villans of WWII invested their all in a lie that they beleived , they died in ignorance and guilt , or lived in guilt and injury."
For which they deserve to be honoured by the visit of a President of the United States of America?
"They ,like we ,all die eventually but worse off than ordinary people for the guilt they were tricked into accepting."
You really don't get it, do you? Most of them NEVER accepted any guilt. Not even today. They "did their duty," "followed their orders," "never saw any atrocities," "knew nothing." The S.S. veterans meetings are still well-attended. I've never heard one where they all fall to their knees and collectively admit guilt, repent and seek forgiveness. Usually they like to order German beer and sing the old songs.
-
Usually they like to order German beer and sing the old songs.
==================================================
Perhaps you were expecting them to drink Bud Lite and sing hip-hop?
-
YOU don't have the right to stop ME from sticking medically necessary needles into YOUR child.
......................................
not when their ability to dictate how others must live is at stake.
So having the right to tell Jehovah's witnesses what they must do is not an example of dictating to others?
But it is okay. Remember, the Left actually WANTS more government in our lives. So, chill, Plane. ;)
-
<<Reagan was an FDR voter , reconcileing with former enmies is a better idea than preserveing enimnity>>
Wow, are you ever underinformed about Reagan. While still a Democrat, Reagan used his position as President of the Screen Actors Guild to spy on the members of his own union and report on their communistic tendencies to the FBI. He was basically a fink, drifted from there into right-wing politics, much as Hitler, after the end of WWI, became an Army spy against left-wing movements, from where he naturally drifted into right-wing politics.
""the visit to the SS graveyard was a good idea. ""
Sure, if you're a Nazi.
"The villans of WWII invested their all in a lie that they beleived , they died in ignorance and guilt , or lived in guilt and injury."
For which they deserve to be honoured by the visit of a President of the United States of America?
"They ,like we ,all die eventually but worse off than ordinary people for the guilt they were tricked into accepting."
You really don't get it, do you? Most of them NEVER accepted any guilt. Not even today. They "did their duty," "followed their orders," "never saw any atrocities," "knew nothing." The S.S. veterans meetings are still well-attended. I've never heard one where they all fall to their knees and collectively admit guilt, repent and seek forgiveness. Usually they like to order German beer and sing the old songs.
Mt, many of these Nazis were only Nazis in name only. Just because you were a Nazi, even in the dreaded SS, does not mean you were "evil". Perhaps you are clouded by your hatred?
-
Usually they like to order German beer and sing the old songs.
==================================================
Perhaps you were expecting them to drink Bud Lite and sing hip-hop?
Naw, they didn't drink LITE beers back then. Back then when MEN were MEN and...well, you know.
-
My comment was in jest, of course.
German SS vets might be evil, they might be Satanic, but they are Germans, and Germans would sooner quench their thirst with horsep*ss from the Bud Wagon Clydesdales than with LITE beer in the Wagon they brought it in.
Assuming that a wagon of Bud Lite could actually get into Germany, of course.
-
Let's see ... there's Jesus. If you associate yourself with him, the left brings out all the old standards.
Perhaps some on the left do, I certainly don't. I don't like the idea of mandated prayer in schools, or displaying the 10 Commandments as a political gimmick, but I have no problem with someone being religious and believeing whatever it is that they believe.
Then there's Pat Roberston. He's a sure fire winner
I don't like Pat Robertson. Period. I personally have no respect for someone that associates directly with him, but the 3 degrees of separation thing that sirs pointed out is legitimate. I can't judge someone because they know someone who knows someone, that's unfair to the person that I'm looking at.
"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." The 700 Club, 1/18/95
Some good Pat Robertson quotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson)
Jerry Falwell, when he was alive anyway.
Same thing for Pat Robertson.
?AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals?
?Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America?
Jerry Falwell quotes: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jerry_falwell/ (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/jerry_falwell/)
The Catholic Church. If your Catholic, you lefties simply can't resist play the "pedophile" priest card. Also associating yourself with the Church get's you branded a sexual devient because of the church' stance on birth control and abortion.
In my experience, most of the most fervent anti-Catholics are the evangelicals. That's not to say some on the left aren't anti-Catholic, but it sure as hell isn't restricted to the left. I was raised Catholic and was devout for many years, only recently having left the Church when I couldn't reconcile some of my personal beliefs with the teachings of the Church. JS is Catholic. I'm not sure who else is, but Catholics as a whole are some of the more liberal religious folks out there (which again, is not to say that there aren't conservative Catholics, but compared to say, evangelicals, or fundamentalists, they're pretty liberal as a group).
As I said above, it isn't legitimate to judge someone on three degrees of separation. This also isn't a value restricted to the left, the right uses it too. In neither case is it okay or correct. Direct association is one thing, indirect is another. As for Bob Jones, I personally could care less if someone goes there and gives a speech. A lot of times it's pandering, but so what? Both parties do that, whether it's a Republican at Bob Jones or a Democrat at a black church.
-
<<Perhaps you were expecting them to drink Bud Lite and sing hip-hop?>>
No, but that'd be a great scene for a Woody Allen or Mel Brooks movie.
-
>> I'm not sure who else is (Catholic) ... <<
I'm Catholic. Went to Catholic school and everything.
-
If memory serves we have quite a few Catholics as members, either active or fallen away.
-
<<Mt, many of these Nazis were only Nazis in name only. Just because you were a Nazi, even in the dreaded SS, does not mean you were "evil". >>
So now not even the "dreaded SS" were evil? I gotta laugh at the moral relativism here. If the SS weren't evil, who WAS evil? The Andrews sisters?
<<Perhaps you are clouded by your hatred?>>
I think so too. Blinded is more like it. It's an outrage that they even exist and still breathe. But the bottom line is that we're all capable of doing the same thing. Who punished the Canadian army for Somalia? Who punished the U.S. for My Lai? Who punished the Israelis for Sabra and Shatila?
I guess the answer is that the human race is still in the early stages of its evolution and that we have centuries or even millennia of more Auschwitzes, My Lais, Sabras and Shatilas ahead of us before we turn into anything better. Meantime everyone gets a pass - - you smashed open a kid's head and spilled his brains into the mother's face? Hey, no problem, say three Hail Marys and try to love Jews and gypsies a little more, OK? You raped that girl before you blew her head open, and then fished around in it for the gold teeth? It's OK, c'mon in, it's almost dinner time. Welcome to the human race.
-
>> ... either active or fallen away. <<
Most Catholics are both.
;)
-
"[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers." The 700 Club, 1/18/95
This hasn't happened?
It seems to me that there are probly a lot more homosexuls that don't need to act out , but the ones that do , do a good job of attracting attention.
The Pat Robertson impression is made from the information availible to him , includeing the incidents when homosexuals were purposely confrontational.
(http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/09/sistersholyredeemer.jpg)
http://thesisters.org/
http://www.actupny.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008411.php
http://romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2007/10/catholic-archbi.html
-
Give me a break plane, you and Robertson are as bad as the main stream media you guys are always bitching about. You take the worst out of one group and hold them up as an example of the mass. That'd be like me saying that since you're conservative and don't favor gay marriage, you must be like those Phelps wack jobs that protest funerals. Got your sign? (That is sarcasm also Plane, I'm not trying to attack you personally, just using an example).
Did you check out any of the other quotes attributed to Robertson?
Sheesh
-
That'd be like me saying that since you're conservative and don't favor gay marriage, you must be like those Phelps wack jobs that protest funerals.
That is a pretty strong denunciation of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and act up.
-
It's a tactic I've noticed has worked for conservatives, though. They point out the craziest of all their opponents and try to portray them as representative of the movement. They did it to the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, they do it to the gay-marriage issue and they do it in any Middle East issue, where they portray anyone who resists Amerikkkan or Zionist aggression and/or imperialism as some woman-hating 14th-Century suicide bomber who's preparing a massive genocide in order to bring back the Caliphate.
In case anyone wants to comment that my putting three Ks into "Amerikkka" is really no different, I would say it's just a modest little effort to fight fire with fire, rhetorically speaking.
-
It's a tactic I've noticed has worked for conservatives, though. They point out the craziest of all their opponents and try to portray them as representative of the movement. They did it to the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s, they do it to the gay-marriage issue and they do it in any Middle East issue, where they portray anyone who resists Amerikkkan or Zionist aggression and/or imperialism as some woman-hating 14th-Century suicide bomber who's preparing a massive genocide in order to bring back the Caliphate.
In case anyone wants to comment that my putting three Ks into "Amerikkka" is really no different, I would say it's just a modest little effort to fight fire with fire, rhetorically speaking.
Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?
-
<<Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?>>
No, only those discussions where someone wants to demonize all Muslims by quoting from their craziest religious leaders. I think Pat Robertson makes a nice counter-weight, don't you?
-
That is a pretty strong denunciation of the sisters of perpetual indulgence and act up.
And? This may come as a surprise, but I don't agree with the strategies of most gay rights groups. Too many let their sexuality define them and play to a stereotype rather than being who they are. Disrupting a church service isn't helping the cause, it's just getting your name in the paper.
-
Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?
Who introduced Pat Robertson to this discussion?
-
<<Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?>>
No, only those discussions where someone wants to demonize all Muslims by quoting from their craziest religious leaders.
and the list of who does that is...........who again? But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians. That was quite big of you to advance such a confession
-
Does this explain bringing Pat Robertson into every discussion?
Who introduced Pat Robertson to this discussion?
That'd be me, and unlike what the left does when they bring him in, I brought him in to highlight the blatant double standard when it comes to Democrats who have associated with pretty "far out" spiritual leaders, but get not a whiff of criticism or condemnation from the left or MSM, the way anyone associated with Robertson or Bob Jones gets
-
I know you brought in Robertson, and I understand why you did it. I was trying to refute Plane's insinuation that the left always brings in Robertson, that's all.
Most people on either the left or the right are to complicated to fall under labels or blanket statements. I try not to make them toward other people, and I don't like it when they're applied to me. There are some on the left I can't stand, Ted Kennedy for one. The group that Plane brought up, the SoPI for another. The ACLU goes to far (in my opinion obviously) at times. I really am not at all a fan of moveon.org. We're all hypocrites in our own way, but it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to be. There are people in both parties and ideologies that I like and admire, but as you can tell, Robertson definitely isn't one of them.
-
<<But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians. That was quite big of you to advance such a confession>>
Well, I can speak for myself on that issue. I brought Robertson into the discussion as a clear-cut demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Amerikkkan fascist movement, who think they can demnize all Muslims, or those who oppose Amerikkkan fascism, racism and imperialism, by quoting their craziest religious leaders, not realizing that the same tactic would work equally well in reverse.
-
<<But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians. That was quite big of you to advance such a confession>>
Well, I can speak for myself on that issue. I brought Robertson into the discussion as a clear-cut demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Amerikkkan fascist movement, who think they can demnize all Muslims, or those who oppose Amerikkkan fascism, racism and imperialism, by quoting their craziest religious leaders, not realizing that the same tactic would work equally well in reverse.
Your demonstration works if the reverse is equal.
-
The Pat Robertson impression is made from the information availible to him , includeing the incidents when homosexuals were purposely confrontational.
So some homosexuals are confrontational, and all of a sudden Pat Robertson, with God on his speed dial, suddenly knows that they want to throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS? I googled homosexuals throwing blood, and all I found was Robertson's quote. Perhaps you could show me where a gay person suggested such action? And if I'm wrong I'll admit it. Sounds to me more like he's trying to condemn homosexuals not by the traditional action, the Bible, but by pretending to know what they want to do. That's dishonest. And frankly, kind of sick.
-
<<But at least you're conceding it's merely a tactic of bringing Roberston into a discussion, to hyperbolically demonize all Christians. That was quite big of you to advance such a confession>>
Well, I can speak for myself on that issue. I brought Robertson into the discussion as a clear-cut demonstration of the hypocrisy of the Amerikkkan fascist movement, who think they can demnize all Muslims
And we're all looking forward to this pervasive list of those that do precisely that. *whistle*
-
The Pat Robertson impression is made from the information availible to him , includeing the incidents when homosexuals were purposely confrontational.
So some homosexuals are confrontational, and all of a sudden Pat Robertson, with God on his speed dial, suddenly knows that they want to throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS? I googled homosexuals throwing blood, and all I found was Robertson's quote. Perhaps you could show me where a gay person suggested such action? And if I'm wrong I'll admit it. Sounds to me more like he's trying to condemn homosexuals not by the traditional action, the Bible, but by pretending to know what they want to do. That's dishonest. And frankly, kind of sick.
Ok , Pat Robertson deserves criticism for exageration.
And also criticism for expanding his accusation beyond the scope that scripture demands.
-
Thanks Plane, you're honest.
-
<<Your demonstration works if the reverse is equal.>>
You're setting the bar way too high. No two people are going to be the exact equal of one another in craziness, especially if they come from two different cultures and are addressing two different audiences. I consider them equally crazy (more or less) if both are irrational, propose disastrous and horribly violent solutions and claim to be chanelling God almighty when doing so. To go beyond that and explore levels of craziness is just pointless nitpicking. There are some really crazy ideas that would fly in Teheran but wouldn't fly in Oshkosh. Also, we're not looking for craziness from the same cultural POV. What appears crazy to a Westerner might not appear all that crazy to a Middle Easterner. We'd wind up endlessly splitting hairs to no good purpose.
-
<<Your demonstration works if the reverse is equal.>>
You're setting the bar way too high. No two people are going to be the exact equal of one another in craziness, especially if they come from two different cultures and are addressing two different audiences. I consider them equally crazy (more or less) if both are irrational, propose disastrous and horribly violent solutions and claim to be channeling God almighty when doing so. To go beyond that and explore levels of craziness is just pointless nitpicking. There are some really crazy ideas that would fly in Tehran but wouldn't fly in Oshkosh. Also, we're not looking for craziness from the same cultural POV. What appears crazy to a Westerner might not appear all that crazy to a Middle Easterner. We'd wind up endlessly splitting hairs to no good purpose.
Well then let it be within the same order of magnitude , which might be more subjective .
Or is your point that the Audience of Pat Robertson is more civilized than the audience of the radical Muslims?
Such that equal exhortation is not required to achieve equivalent frenzy?
-
<<And we're all looking forward to this pervasive list of those that do precisely that. [demonize Muslims by quoting their craziest religious leaders] *whistle*>>
Whistle a happy tune, my friend, and look no further than the head of this thread, or the others criticizing Obama's so-called Muslim links.
-
<<And we're all looking forward to this pervasive list of those that do precisely that. [demonize Muslims by quoting their craziest religious leaders] *whistle*>>
Whistle a happy tune, my friend, and look no further than the head of this thread, or the others criticizing Obama's so-called Muslim links.
I thought the link in question was a Christian pastor , outspoken in a manner simular to Pat Robertson?
If Obamas pastor was Pat Robertson himself , would you be interested?
-
<<I thought the link in question was a Christian pastor , outspoken in a manner simular to Pat Robertson?>>
You're wrong - - the link is THROUGH the pastor to Muslim extremists and their web-sites. The connection they are hoping to establish is Obama=Farrakhan and even worse, the further you go down the links.
<<If Obamas pastor was Pat Robertson himself , would you be interested?>>
Depending on who Pat Robertson linked to and how much of his and their ideology you could find in Obama's words. Generally, I realize that politicians have to reach out to a lot of people, some of them probably unsavoury, get the support without committing to a reciprocal support, promising nothing to them. Ideally they won't like you but will feel you're not as bad as your competition and that's why they will support you.
I'm basically not as freaked out by Farrakhan and more extreme Muslims as you seem to be. I realize there is a lot of anger there, but also that a lot of that anger is justified. Nazis, on the other hand, are just vermin that need to be destroyed. They're angry at nothing, for no good reason, so you don't get the feeling that you are dealing with a thinking, feeling human beng, only with a ball of living hate. In Farrakhan and his ilk, I can see the hurt lurking behind the hatred.
-
<<And we're all looking forward to this pervasive list of those that do precisely that. [demonize ALL Muslims by quoting their craziest religious leaders] *whistle*>>
Whistle a happy tune, my friend, and look no further than the head of this thread, or the others criticizing Obama's so-called Muslim links.
Ok, that makes a grand total of ................... 1. wow, way to go, Tee
-
Plenty of other threads here starting with the exact same kind of shit, sirs. I'm not combing the internet for you. If you can easily find them right here in this NG, they're all over the net.
-
Plenty of other threads here starting with the exact same kind of shit, sirs. I'm not combing the internet for you.
I understand. When you can't back up your own accusation.....get someone else to do it. Hey, whatever works for you, big guy
-
Thanks Plane, you're honest.
Yes , ...
But I am not always such a pushover about it.
-
"Uh-oh! Press Beginning to Link . . . "
"Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?"
"Radical Muslims for Obama"
There are just three examples from this NG of attempts to link Obama to crazd extremists. there are more.
-
And.....................? Provides squat to your accusation of some mass of folks condemning all muslims, by virture of referencing some "crazed" religious leader
Next
-
Yes , ...
But I am not always such a pushover about it.
Tell me something I don't know ;D
-
As I've said before, liberals/fascists out there have a literal cow when a Republican speaks at Bob Jones University. To liberals/fascists being there equates to chaining Black man to your bumper and dragging him to his death. In this case, a ultra liberal Black man belongs to a church who's leader espouses all kinds of racist ideals and this is a non issue. Remember know, the Republican speaking at Bob Jones U isn't on the board, didn't attend the University. Barrack Hussein Obama BELONGS to this Church. If he disagreed with it's teachings, he could leave. That's the nice thing about being a Protestant. You can fire the preacher, start your own church, or attend one with a less racist pastor. But Barrak Hussein Obama has belonged to this particular Church for 20 YEARS.
Does the Democratic hopeful agree with his pastor? Of course he does. If he doesn't, why is he still a parishoner?
AGREED. I've pointed that out to several people-why the fuck isn't this an issue, when for a republican candidate it would be?! Combine this with his lackluster "career", and the man disturbs me.
-
<<And.....................? Provides squat to your accusation of some mass of folks condemning all muslims, by virture of referencing some "crazed" religious leader>>
This'll take some time. This thread started off with a smear of Obama and I was looking for similar smears to the Wright-Farrakhan smear. I lost sight of the fact that somewhere in the thread I broadened the smear technique's use by referring to its use in smearing all Muslims. I had no problem finding similar smears of Obama (at least three in the past few days just in this NG) but smears of Muslims generally, I'll have to look further afield.
-
<<Or is your point that the Audience of Pat Robertson is more civilized than the audience of the radical Muslims?
<<Such that equal exhortation is not required to achieve equivalent frenzy?>>
More civilized? Whooah, plane, I would never go there. Considering that that Persian civilization is measured in millennia and yours in centuries, I would not want to be the judge of who is the more civilized.
No, my point is simply that there are differences in culture, such that a word or phrase in one culture might have a totally different effect in the other. As an example, Ahmadinejad's speech about Israel vanishing from the pages of history interpreted in the U.S.A. as a call to genocide. What sounds crazy to them might not sound so crazy to us and vice versa.
-
<<Or is your point that the Audience of Pat Robertson is more civilized than the audience of the radical Muslims?
<<Such that equal exhortation is not required to achieve equivalent frenzy?>>
More civilized? Whooah, plane, I would never go there. Considering that that Persian civilization is measured in millennia and yours in centuries, I would not want to be the judge of who is the more civilized.
No, my point is simply that there are differences in culture, such that a word or phrase in one culture might have a totally different effect in the other. As an example, Ahmadinejad's speech about Israel vanishing from the pages of history interpreted in the U.S.A. as a call to genocide. What sounds crazy to them might not sound so crazy to us and vice versa.
No Persian I have heard of is millenia old , rather they have a government formed within my own memory and a population whose advradge age is half my age.
The Christian meme is two millinia old, a half millinia older than the Muslim . The Democracy meme might be the origional condition of man, who knows?
That Iranian exicutions are frequent and are usually done by slow hanging for strangulation strikes me as a sort of wild west sort of justice , I reaise we are only a century advanced from the wild west ourselves but that is a cetury of the same system undergoing self improvement. The Iranian government is too young to have improved itself that much.
-
<<That Iranian exicutions are frequent and are usually done by slow hanging for strangulation strikes me as a sort of wild west sort of justice . . . >>
That's very true, but our original comparison was not between governments but between AUDIENCES. You wanted to know if I felt that Pat Robertson's audience was more "civilized" than Persian audiences. Pat Robertson is a man who advocates assassination of foreign leaders as politics, invasion of other countries as foreign policy and believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing America for its tolerance of homosexuality. His followers probably still drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flags flying and I've never once heard him speak out against torture. I have no evidence to indicate that his audience is any more appalled by tortures that are worse than slow strangulation and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to which audience is more evil and vicious than the other. Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to.
-
<<And.....................? Provides squat to your accusation of some mass of folks condemning all muslims, by virture of referencing some "crazed" religious leader>>
I lost sight of the fact that somewhere in the thread I broadened the smear technique's use by referring to its use in smearing all Muslims. I had no problem finding similar smears of Obama but smears of Muslims generally, I'll have to look further afield.
We'll all wait patiently to back up that asanine allegation, then
-
M-tee:
"Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to."
Having lived in the world for a longer time does't equate to being civilized or automatically owning the title of civility.
Are you saying the Persian culture ---old as it is and having had more experiences of living together in units of family or tribe is somehow NOT as EVIL compared to the Anglo Saxon culture?
Developed seems to be the key word here.
Mainly developed?. . you would think it makes for better, kinder, gentler, more civilized, and less evil.
::)
-
<<Are you saying the Persian culture ---old as it is and having had more experiences of living together in units of family or tribe is somehow NOT as EVIL compared to the Anglo Saxon culture?>>
No, really, I was just thinking of ways in which the same words or conduct would be perceived differently depending on whether they were displayed in the one culture or the other. plane asked if I thought a Persian audience would be more or less civilized than a Pat Robertson audience, and I actually wanted to pass on deciding which audience would be more civilized. The Persians obviously had a head start, but that's not to say that a later-coming civilization couldn't make faster progress, catch up and surpass the older one. I just did not know, so I didn't feel I had the right or the knowledge to decide.
I think both cultures have enormous capacities for evil - - you can just look at the tortures in the Persian prison system, especially under the Shah and now too in the Islamic Republic. Teenage homosexuals publicly hanged from cranes. Jeeziz. But you can look at the slave trade, slavery, lynch mobs and the killing of millions of Vietnamese, the tortures of Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam, etc. in America. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over two hundred years, the U.S. seems to average an invasion every two or three years.
I think the extent to which a culture leaves cruelty and violence behind is one measure of civilization, obviously, but there are other measures - - the advancement of knowledge, of the arts, of manners (in France, almost everyone is addressed as Sir or Madam, particularly strangers, here it's a special sign of good upbringing if the practice is followed) and even in forms of speech. Civilization is just a lengthy build-up of days and months and years lived as a culture. What happened, what's to show for it?
-
Nice post, M-tee....good read.
The human is capable of evil-- pure and simple. To what extent the human exercises the power to break through the barrier, or to cross the line from good to evil, can't always be compared or precisely measured. ....and of course that crossing line, comparison, or measure of evil depends on many factors:
Sure the Shah was a bad dude, but to say that he was "especially so"..in terms of brutality seems to be saying that the Shah was the worse of two evils. Maybe...but, one who has a bias against someone like the Shah or of the current regime doesn't matter.....killing for evil reasons is still killing! Killing is permanent! Dead is dead. Intent in in the eye of the beholder. Thus our board rallies to discuss which one is more or less justified. You think that Americans have more of an evil intent...as do others....in terms of the Iraqi war...and in terms of invading other countries. But, are we more evil? I don't think so.
Seems that in this world of constant wrestling for power ....which is the bottom line in any civilization, evil is going to be used to describe anyone who kills...........
Someone in the world has to be a powerful one.
I have to wonder if Iran, Iraq, or Cuba had the chance to be the "powerful one"....would we be even having this discussion.
-
I'm starting to get the feeling that morality is a competition. America might be acting real bad, but then that's OK because someone else is just as bad. or worse. And of course if you condemn anything bad that America does, you're "an America hater" because you didn't point out everyone else who is worse. Or who someone else claims is worse.
Or looked at from another POV, I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country. Being evil today just ain't no big deal. So then the discussion comes to revolve around which country is more evil than which other country. Not only do such discussions seem empty and pointless in themselves, but they frequently take on a "Joe Louis could have beaten Rocky Marciano" quality of comparison of hypotheticals, of how evil Cuba WOULD be if Cuba had the power of the U.S.A.
Then there is this theory that somebody has to be top dog. WHY? Why does America have to rank anywhere? Top, bottom, first, third? What is the point? England used to be No. 1. Now she's not. Blew everything in the war trying to stay top dog, and had to cede pride of place to the U.S., then Russia, now soon China. What does it matter to the average Englishman or Englishwoman? Are they moping around all day moaning Awww shit, our navy used to be the biggest and now it's not? They've got their land, their lives and their jobs.
-
I'm starting to get the feeling that morality is a competition. America might be acting real bad, but then that's OK because someone else is just as bad. or worse. And of course if you condemn anything bad that America does, you're "an America hater" because you didn't point out everyone else who is worse. Or who someone else claims is worse.
Or looked at from another POV, I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country. Being evil today just ain't no big deal. So then the discussion comes to revolve around which country is more evil than which other country. Not only do such discussions seem empty and pointless in themselves, but they frequently take on a "Joe Louis could have beaten Rocky Marciano" quality of comparison of hypotheticals, of how evil Cuba WOULD be if Cuba had the power of the U.S.A.
Then there is this theory that somebody has to be top dog. WHY? Why does America have to rank anywhere? Top, bottom, first, third? What is the point? England used to be No. 1. Now she's not. Blew everything in the war trying to stay top dog, and had to cede pride of place to the U.S., then Russia, now soon China. What does it matter to the average Englishman or Englishwoman? Are they moping around all day moaning Awww shit, our navy used to be the biggest and now it's not? They've got their land, their lives and their jobs.
But MTee, someone is always going to be top dog. I am not saying that there's anything wrong with being middle or bottom dog.
America could be middle on many levels. Sure, America should not invade other nations without a really good reason...I agree, I am also saying, however, that some nations are bent on supression and brutally---i.e. beheading women for wearing makeup. If that nation were to suddenly strike oil and produce a military to die from.... I sure as heck wouldn't want them top dog anything.
The degree to which a country flexes such muscles is the danger here. Sure, our nation has made mistakes....but the issue of civility comes to mind here. If a top dog country rises to the top militarily, economically or otherwise and has the power to enforce it's beliefs and morals such as Iraq, I'd take American morals anyday.
-
I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country. Being evil today just ain't no big deal.
I think you can attribute that to calling any and everything that doesn't agree with your myopically skewed view of what is, is, and what the war in Iraq is supposedly all about, as being some fascist, torture-loving, Bush sychophant. That kind of repetative idiocy tends to degrade the senses to real evil, real fascists, real hatred. A little like the crying wolf phenomenon
You want to call Amerikkka evil Tee, you go right ahead.....knock your socks off. All the while those countries and entities volitionally performing true acts of evil enjoy your brushing right over them, in order to perpeutate your irrational hatred of this country. Not that it would matter to them, they'd kill you and your family in a heartbeat, and not think twice, so no worries. Please, continue with your Amerikkka & Bush is the epitome of evil rant
-
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/02/07/damon.iraq.taliban.state.cnn
I guess I would rather be free to wear a bit of blush....but that's just me.
Cindy
-
I hardly think that the US is deliberately evil. The Iraq War was a stupid move to secure oil reserves that has resulted in nearly 4,000 dead Americans and LOTS more dead and displaced Iraqis, and many more maimed and displaced people and ruined lives. And these results are easily described as evil.
The US is number one in the minds of many Americans as the 'best country on Earth'. It has been my experience that the more a person has traveled and/or lived abroad, the less one hears this. Such travel experiences as package tours and cruises do not seem to produce this more measured view of the world, but that may be because people who like to be catered to are not of the sort than tries to delve too deeply into the ways that other cultures function.
Probably most Americans will feel most comfortable living in the US. But other countries have higher per capita income, more cultural phenomena (plays, museums, galleries, tours, historical monuments), and less materialistic people.
I always had a LOT more fun at parties with my Mexican friends than I had in the US with American friends. Mexicans are better at having fun pretty much anywhere. I have not lived in Argentina or Spain long enough to make a comparison, but I suspect that the same is true there.
A good meal in a Spanish restaurant is more enjoyable to me, as is the conversation. No one does seafood beter than the Spanish. Their tomatos and oranges outshine all others by far, and keep in mind that I live in Florida.
No one even comes close to Argentina for any sort of beef: steaks, sausages, sweetmeats, whatever. I would like to try some Argentine steak with some Kansas City barbecue sauce, though.
-
<<I guess I would rather be free to wear a bit of blush....but that's just me. >>
I wonder if you realize that under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the religious fundamentalists had no role in making the rules, the women of Iraq were not only free to wear lipstick, make-up, skirts and high heels, but women in headscarves were suspected of religious fundamentalism and ran the risk of attracting negative government attention.
So if you like wearing "a bit of blush," then the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party is the party for you. It was pretty good at keeping religion out of the government.
-
I hardly think that the US is deliberately evil. The Iraq War was a stupid move to secure oil reserves that has resulted in nearly 4,000 dead Americans and LOTS more dead and displaced Iraqis, and many more maimed and displaced people and ruined lives. And these results are easily described as evil.
The US is number one in the minds of many Americans as the 'best country on Earth'. It has been my experience that the more a person has traveled and/or lived abroad, the less one hears this. Such travel experiences as package tours and cruises do not seem to produce this more measured view of the world, but that may be because people who like to be catered to are not of the sort than tries to delve too deeply into the ways that other cultures function.
Probably most Americans will feel most comfortable living in the US. But other countries have higher per capita income, more cultural phenomena (plays, museums, galleries, tours, historical monuments), and less materialistic people.
I always had a LOT more fun at parties with my Mexican friends than I had in the US with American friends. Mexicans are better at having fun pretty much anywhere. I have not lived in Argentina or Spain long enough to make a comparison, but I suspect that the same is true there.
A good meal in a Spanish restaurant is more enjoyable to me, as is the conversation. No one does seafood beter than the Spanish. Their tomatos and oranges outshine all others by far, and keep in mind that I live in Florida.
No one even comes close to Argentina for any sort of beef: steaks, sausages, sweetmeats, whatever. I would like to try some Argentine steak with some Kansas City barbecue sauce, though.
Then you should come to New Mexico and enjoy a bit of the Carne and the green chili, not to mention the posole!
ha! We live in a culture that sometimes I would rather be of the "foreign persuasion". We are the "missing State". I say, keep on driving by.....don't let the wind sock hit you in the arsss...to the folks who hold such arrogance. THE rest of the USA.
But, I would still rather live in the USA than any other country in the world.
As for enjoying a particular culture of people in a party setting over another, flavor is flavor. True. Some meals/some folks just have that ability to out flavor the other. ha! The individual makes the party-- not the other way around. I have had great food and plenty of laughs at many a Persian party, but I have no desire to go past that party line.....and move into the nearest village. Of course, I am not saying you are willing to do that either...move into Mexico or Spain just because you have celebrated with flavor that pleases you. But, we can't strike blows against one culture just because they don't party harty dude. ya think?
Now see what you've done Micky....I am getting hungry!
-
<<I guess I would rather be free to wear a bit of blush....but that's just me. >>
I wonder if you realize that under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party, the religious fundamentalists had no role in making the rules, the women of Iraq were not only free to wear lipstick, make-up, skirts and high heels, but women in headscarves were suspected of religious fundamentalism and ran the risk of attracting negative government attention.
So if you like wearing "a bit of blush," then the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party is the party for you. It was pretty good at keeping religion out of the government.
No, I did not realize that Saddam had such a clean record. . my bad. Keep on keeping that old time religion out of the government....wow...let us all learn more from the BASparty.
Sign me up for his make-over system...oops, wait, he's dead....could had a better comb over, perhaps...ok...I am slappy happy...hoem with a cold here today....can't taste a thing. hate that.
-
<<I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country. Being evil today just ain't no big deal. >>
(my - - MT's - - comment that calling attention to evil conduct on the part of America no longer seems sufficient - - evil conduct by America seems to be unobjectionable unless some other country is equally or more evil. Morality has turned competitive now - - the ultimate victory of moral relativism)
and here's sirs' response:
<<I think you can attribute that to calling any and everything that doesn't agree with your myopically skewed view of what is, is, and what the war in Iraq is supposedly all about, as being some fascist, torture-loving, Bush sychophant. >>
I'll try to translate that into English. [still in sirs' voice]
<<Tee, people don't take you seriously when you point out any so-called "evil" conduct on the part of America because whenever somebody disagrees with your skewed view of the situation, such as the Iraq war, you call that person a fascist, a torture-lover and a Bush sycophant.>>
Well, with all due respect, sirs, you've addressed one issue, that of the boy who cried "wolf" once too often and was not taken seriously thereafter. Unfortunately, you are completely wrong about that issue as well, but since I wasn't raising it n the first place, I don't feel I need to respond to it in detail here; suffice to say that the frequent cries of "wolf" aren't due to the "boy's" hysteria but are the only valid response to the deeds of the pack of wolves that live near him. And that some people understand that and know that "wolf" means "wolf" ten times out of ten, and others live in a fantasy world, refusing or unable to believe that the country they love could in fact be inflicting a plague of wolves on the planet.
The issue that I was raising wouldn't apply to you at all, sirs - - you're living in that fantasy world of America the Good and the Beneficent, and so you don't see any of the evil at all; except of course that you are afraid of appearing totally ridiculous, and so from time to time, you make a pro forma admission that you "know that America's not perfect" or "America has its faults, sure, but . . . " and then go on to defend just about every God-damn thing the country's done in the past 100 years.
The issue that I was raising concerns those folks who at least have enough realism in their POV to know that America does a lot of bad things. My point to them was that that in itself ought to provoke a shit-storm of rage, shame, activism, pressure to end the abuse, etc. However, it seems to me that we are now into some new era of public morality, in which, before it can even be admitted that there is a problem, I (or whoever else is conducting the argument) must first show that nobody else is committing the same act, or that if they are, that America is not the worst of them. That was what I meant when I said that morality is becoming a competition. A wrong act isn't wrong if others do it too. A wrong act isn't wrong if others do even worse. Moral relativism at its worst and craziest.
<<You want to call Amerikkka evil Tee, you go right ahead.....knock your socks off.>>
Translation: Say whatever you like, I ain't lissnin and I don't give a shit. (Who gives a shit?)
<<All the while those countries and entities volitionally performing true acts of evil enjoy your brushing right over them . . . >>
Translation: (1) The U.S. doesn't perform "true acts of evil." Only the others are capable of "true acts of evil;" and (2) I shouldn't be condemning the U.S. for anything if other countries are doing something even worse. Ridiculous.
<< . . . they'd kill you and your family in a heartbeat, and not think twice>>
I think this line wandered in from another thread. It's usually part of the "support Amerikkka's war on "terror" because otherwise them fuckin Ay-rabs will slit your throat and your family's throats, they hate you so much. They hate you for your freedoms because they're Muslims." The Great Threat from the Mysterious East. Cue in the snake-charming music and the sounds of an Arab market.
-
<<I don't get anywhere pointing out that America is evil - - I have to show that it's MORE evil than any other country. Being evil today just ain't no big deal. >>
<<I think you can attribute that to calling any and everything that doesn't agree with your myopically skewed view of what is, is, and what the war in Iraq is supposedly all about, as being some fascist, torture-loving, Bush sychophant. >>
Well, with all due respect, sirs, you've addressed one issue, that of the boy who cried "wolf" once too often and was not taken seriously thereafter. Unfortunately, you are completely wrong about that issue as well, but since I wasn't raising it n the first place, I don't feel I need to respond to it in detail here; suffice to say that the frequent cries of "wolf" aren't due to the "boy's" hysteria but are the only valid response to the deeds of the pack of wolves that live near him.
And your repetation of crying wolf simply revalidates my point. Thank you
-
<<No one even comes close to Argentina for any sort of beef: steaks, sausages, sweetmeats, whatever. I would like to try some Argentine steak with some Kansas City barbecue sauce, though.>>
Better go now, XO, while their currency is still at the bottom of the tank, it's probably one of the few decent places in the world where the American dollar still works its fabled magic. Montevideo, too - - exact same cuisine from what I could tell. (Visits to two parrillas and I'm already an expert on the cuisine of the region.)
Damn, now I'm hungry. Wife left me some chili to microwave. It's pretty good.
-
<<No one even comes close to Argentina for any sort of beef: steaks, sausages, sweetmeats, whatever. I would like to try some Argentine steak with some Kansas City barbecue sauce, though.>>
Better go now, XO, while their currency is still at the bottom of the tank, it's probably one of the few decent places in the world where the American dollar still works its fabled magic. Montevideo, too - - exact same cuisine from what I could tell. (Visits to two parrillas and I'm already an expert on the cuisine of the region.)
Damn, now I'm hungry. Wife left me some chili to microwave. It's pretty good.
Hey, Mtee,
May I ask you where in Canada you live...or do you live in Canada?
Not that it's a big deal....I guess I want to know if you are involved in discussions in the Canadian 3DHS boards, as well. Do they have such a thing? Do you debate in your own country?
Just curious.
Cindy
-
<<That Iranian exicutions are frequent and are usually done by slow hanging for strangulation strikes me as a sort of wild west sort of justice . . . >>
That's very true, but our original comparison was not between governments but between AUDIENCES. You wanted to know if I felt that Pat Robertson's audience was more "civilized" than Persian audiences. Pat Robertson is a man who advocates assassination of foreign leaders as politics, invasion of other countries as foreign policy and believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's way of punishing America for its tolerance of homosexuality. His followers probably still drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flags flying and I've never once heard him speak out against torture. I have no evidence to indicate that his audience is any more appalled by tortures that are worse than slow strangulation and I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to which audience is more evil and vicious than the other. Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to.
You can imply I am racist , disparage my cultural heritage and national identity , you can call me cruel and stupid , but now you're talking down my truck?
That is just too much.
Is nothing sacred to you?
-
Civilization is mainly developed by experience in living together in units larger than a mere family or tribe and they sure as hell have had a lot more experience of that than the Anglo-Saxons can lay claim to.
I would like to challenge this premise.
The USA is heir to all te traditios in the world , none are unavailible.
But to narrow it down to "Western " civilisation the factor of anchientness is not inferior in any way because we trace cultural influence not only through the anchient Celt and Germanic tradition but the anchient Roman , Greek , Turk , Persian and Egyptian influence that shaped anchient Europe in waves of conquest and re-conquest.
Linguists know why "Deva" in India and "Devine" in England have such simular sound and meaning , the root language was old when Egypt was founded and was spread across all of Europe and half of Asia retaining many grammar habts and common words the whole time.
The premise that one culture is old and another is young is a rootless theroy of no effect , the individual is the unit of Humanity and one child o the most anchient tradition can be a savage .
Whether you beleive in Evoution or Genisis there is no evidence that one culture has fewer generations since Lucy (Eve) than any other.
-
Hey, Mtee,
May I ask you where in Canada you live...or do you live in Canada?
Not that it's a big deal....I guess I want to know if you are involved in discussions in the Canadian 3DHS boards, as well. Do they have such a thing? Do you debate in your own country?
Just curious.
Cindy
==========================================================================
Hi, Cindy,
I live in Toronto, Ontario, been here all my life and married to a Toronto girl.
I have a lot of family who migrated to the U.S., mostly in Detroit originally, but now spread all over the country, east to west and north to south.
I'm sure there are lots of newsgroups or BBS devoted to Canadian politics but you have to realize that Canadian politics are extremely boring. I never bothered with them. I much prefer to follow American politics - - it's like watching the Jerry Springer show in continuous re-runs. The characters are hilarious and it tends to get quite dramatic at times.
-
I'm sure there are lots of newsgroups or BBS devoted to Canadian politics but you have to realize that Canadian politics are extremely boring. I never bothered with them. I much prefer to follow American politics - - it's like watching the Jerry Springer show in continuous re-runs. The characters are hilarious and it tends to get quite dramatic at times.
Yep
He groks US
-
Hey, Mtee,
May I ask you where in Canada you live...or do you live in Canada?
Not that it's a big deal....I guess I want to know if you are involved in discussions in the Canadian 3DHS boards, as well. Do they have such a thing? Do you debate in your own country?
Just curious.
Cindy
==========================================================================
Hi, Cindy,
I live in Toronto, Ontario, been here all my life and married to a Toronto girl.
I have a lot of family who migrated to the U.S., mostly in Detroit originally, but now spread all over the country, east to west and north to south.
I'm sure there are lots of newsgroups or BBS devoted to Canadian politics but you have to realize that Canadian politics are extremely boring. I never bothered with them. I much prefer to follow American politics - - it's like watching the Jerry Springer show in continuous re-runs. The characters are hilarious and it tends to get quite dramatic at times.
Well, thank ya! I was curious.
I suppose Canadian politics is certainly boring compared to this circus. ha! I have to admit it's like a three ringer around this nation, sometimes.
-
Any time you have a country run by mature, responsible, sane and intelligent men and women, it's bound to be dull, unfortunately. America can dream, and sometimes it dreams big, and that's where the trouble starts. Dreamers aren't always thinkers, politicians aren't always honest and conmen are always attracted to dreamers.
-
I still think that Condi is intelligent, mature, sane and responsible.. Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc? Just curious. By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.
-
still think that Condi is intelligent, mature, sane and responsible.. Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc? Just curious. By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.
=========================================
Condi, left to her own devices, might be all these things, but she is first and foremost loyal to Juniorbush, and therefore her actions are as intelligent, sane and mature as his are.
Which they aren't, hence the "before the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud" statement, which was just unwarranted scaremongering
-
"Condi, left to her own devices, might be all these things, "
.....which was my point XO. M-tee claims that he lives in a country where POLITICAL individuals are all of those things. I was just trying to make a point that given the circumstances....so is she as an individual sans the idiot Bush. I agree he's the clown of the town....shame, he may have done so much damage to this country...but my biggest gripe is the NCLB act....and Kennedy had his liberal head in that pot, as well.
So, who knows....we'll see how things improve.
-
<<I still think that Condi is intelligent, mature, sane and responsible..>>
I'll agree with you 75%: she is intelligent, mature and sane. A responsible person quits an administration that is bent on following an illegal and immoral course.
<<Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. >>
No, FDR was a statesman AND a wonderful human being.
<<What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc? Just curious. >>
I think in part it's the lack of posturing. The issues are debated on their merits. If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender. If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine."
Abortion is legal Same-sex marriage too. Nobody wants to make a career for himself by denying rights to the pregnant mother or to gay citizens who pay their taxes and serve their country just as straights do.
<<By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.>>
Thank you. Nice to meet you, too.
-
<<I still think that Condi is intelligent, mature, sane and responsible..>>
I'll agree with you 75%: she is intelligent, mature and sane. A responsible person quits an administration that is bent on following an illegal and immoral course.
<<Perhaps they aren't ALL "trouble" on this American political stage. >>
No, FDR was a statesman AND a wonderful human being.
<<What makes yours so intelligent, sane, mature, etc? Just curious. >>
I think in part it's the lack of posturing. The issues are debated on their merits. If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender. If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine."
Abortion is legal Same-sex marriage too. Nobody wants to make a career for himself by denying rights to the pregnant mother or to gay citizens who pay their taxes and serve their country just as straights do.
<<By the way, nice to meet you. I enjoy meeting all the folks on this board. Have known a few for a long time. I feel like a mama hen round here....fluffin' me wings.>>
Thank you. Nice to meet you, too.
"The issues are debated on their merits. If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the pro-war politicians claim that the other side wants to help the terrorists by running up the white flag of surrender. If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Soviet-style "socialized medicine." "
M-tee,
That makes sense to me, it does. I do think it's awfully easy for Americans to rush to JUDGEment and complain about given issues based on prejudices and party line stands.
Too often the underlying premise of choices made, or rants offered are based on religion, communism, socialism, past biases.etc. . . Indeed, critical issues should be discussed and debated based on their merits.
I like what you have to say here. I haven't agreed with your twist against the American, so I haven't read anything that makes as much sense.....perhaps because I haven't read enough of your posts...or perhaps the tension in the threads here don't lend themselves to the in's and out' pros and cons of issues. I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.
Debating goes so far.....and yes, this is a debate group....but I would like to read solutions for a change.
-
"The issues are debated on their merits. If the debate is on pulling out of Afghanistan, none of the anti-war politicians claim that the other side wants to aggrandise themselves by running up the red flag of imprialism. If the issue is expanding or shrinking the health-care plan, nobody starts complaining about Gordon Gecko style"greed is good ." "
Maturity is in the eye of the beholder isn't it?
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!
http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/To_A_Louse.htm
-
<<I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.>>
Well, for starters, you can solve the problem of Iraq by getting out of Iraq. Preferably within the first 30 to sixty days of the next Democratic inauguration. Like you solved your problem of Viet Nam by getting out of Viet Nam. Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines. The very moment you get out, the problem is solved. Solved because it is not your problem any more. It is Iraq's problem.
Ah, but what if there is a blood-bath after we get out and they all start killing each other? That is their problem. I agree, if they can't come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of how their own country should be governed, they will have a problem, a big one. It is not in the mandate of the U.S. government or in the Constitution of the U.S.A. that the U.S. government has a mandate to solve the problems of countries thousands of miles away from its shores, and in fact the Charter of the United Nations, which was ratified by the United States and all other member UN countries, expressly forbids such interference by member states in the affairs of other member states.
But what if we get out and the terrorists take over the government there? Then won't we have an entire country governed by people who hate our guts and want to destroy us?
Well, first of all it's extremely unlikely - - the people who are fighting for control of Iraq right now are the Sunnis and Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north, who really would rather break away from Iraq altogether and have their own Kurdish nation, Kurdistan. The Sunnis were in charge before and never picked a fight with the U.S. and in fact would be crazy to do so. The Shi'a are religiously the same as the Iranians and would probably form an alliance with the Iranians to protect one another from U.S. attack. This would mean that Iran, with a population of about 73 million, had just acquired a neighbouring state, Iraq, as an ally, with a population of 23 million. Neither the Shi'a nor the Sunni have previously picked fights with the U.S.A. Their "worst" trait - - in Amerikkkan eyes - - is that they won't let themselves be dictated to by Amerikkka and they keep their oil profits to themselves instead of allowing U.S. and British firms in for large percentages of the profits.
But what if "terrorists" still manage to win the current round of fighting and take over the government, whether Michael Tee thinks it's likely or not? Well, then you've got a terrorist government in Iraq that hates your f*****g guts. Same as the governments of Iran and Syria. This is just a world where not everyone is going to love the U.S.A. Some have good reason to hate the U.S. and some have bad reason but it is their reason and the U.S. has to live with the idea of other governments not liking it, just as Israel does, just as Germany does, just as any other nation does. You can't make other nations love you by force and it makes no sense at all to keep an army of occupation engaged until such time as the Iraqis can be forced to accept a government that will love the U.S.A.
This is where a policy of strength has to take over from a policy of fear. The policy of fear is the current policy, "Omigod we could all be killed if the "terrorists" take over Iraq!" The U.S. government should be strong enough to conquer that ridiculous and paralyzing fear and to send a message to any "terrorist" government that may take over Iraq: "We can live with the fact that you hate our guts. We aren't very fond of you either. But what we CAN'T and WON'T live with is another attack like Sept. 11. Hate us all you want, and that's fine. But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth. Or at the very least, invade all over again and kill all of your leaders."
But I would suggest that you solve the problem of Iraq by pulling out of Iraq now and then watching to see what emerges as the new government. If, in the unlikely event of a new alQaeda government emerging, then deal with them as indicated above, tighten your home defences and guard against any imaginable threat. My prediction is, when and if another attack is mounted, you won't know where it's coming from before it hits.
-
Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines.
After seventy years?
I also hope that we can leave Iraq but I do care what shape we leave it in. I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all and i it happened our only recourse would be to go back in with somewhat less restraint this time.
-
<<I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all >>
Why do you think it's likely when your own government claims that al Qaeda's on the run because the Sunni locals themselves turned on them?
Is your own government [ghasp] lying to you?
-
<<I don't think an Al Queda takeover is unlikely at all >>
Why do you think it's likely when your own government claims that al Qaeda's on the run because the Sunni locals themselves turned on them?
Is your own government [ghasp] lying to you?
They are on the run now , that is called succeeding.
-
<<After seventy years?>>
What's 70 years? The British were in India a helluva lot longer than 70 years and they had to pull out, too. The more time, blood and money you spend in trying to hold onto an asset, the greater your loss when you finally pull out.
-
<<I want to know more about how we can solve problems, I guess.>>
Well, for starters, you can solve the problem of Iraq by getting out of Iraq. Preferably within the first 30 to sixty days of the next Democratic inauguration. Like you solved your problem of Viet Nam by getting out of Viet Nam. Like you solved your problem of Philippine independence by getting out of the Philippines. The very moment you get out, the problem is solved. Solved because it is not your problem any more. It is Iraq's problem.
Ah, but what if there is a blood-bath after we get out and they all start killing each other? That is their problem. I agree, if they can't come to a mutually satisfactory resolution of how their own country should be governed, they will have a problem, a big one. It is not in the mandate of the U.S. government or in the Constitution of the U.S.A. that the U.S. government has a mandate to solve the problems of countries thousands of miles away from its shores, and in fact the Charter of the United Nations, which was ratified by the United States and all other member UN countries, expressly forbids such interference by member states in the affairs of other member states.
But what if we get out and the terrorists take over the government there? Then won't we have an entire country governed by people who hate our guts and want to destroy us?
Well, first of all it's extremely unlikely - - the people who are fighting for control of Iraq right now are the Sunnis and Shi'a in the south and the Kurds in the north, who really would rather break away from Iraq altogether and have their own Kurdish nation, Kurdistan. The Sunnis were in charge before and never picked a fight with the U.S. and in fact would be crazy to do so. The Shi'a are religiously the same as the Iranians and would probably form an alliance with the Iranians to protect one another from U.S. attack. This would mean that Iran, with a population of about 73 million, had just acquired a neighbouring state, Iraq, as an ally, with a population of 23 million. Neither the Shi'a nor the Sunni have previously picked fights with the U.S.A. Their "worst" trait - - in Amerikkkan eyes - - is that they won't let themselves be dictated to by Amerikkka and they keep their oil profits to themselves instead of allowing U.S. and British firms in for large percentages of the profits.
But what if "terrorists" still manage to win the current round of fighting and take over the government, whether Michael Tee thinks it's likely or not? Well, then you've got a terrorist government in Iraq that hates your f*****g guts. Same as the governments of Iran and Syria. This is just a world where not everyone is going to love the U.S.A. Some have good reason to hate the U.S. and some have bad reason but it is their reason and the U.S. has to live with the idea of other governments not liking it, just as Israel does, just as Germany does, just as any other nation does. You can't make other nations love you by force and it makes no sense at all to keep an army of occupation engaged until such time as the Iraqis can be forced to accept a government that will love the U.S.A.
This is where a policy of strength has to take over from a policy of fear. The policy of fear is the current policy, "Omigod we could all be killed if the "terrorists" take over Iraq!" The U.S. government should be strong enough to conquer that ridiculous and paralyzing fear and to send a message to any "terrorist" government that may take over Iraq: "We can live with the fact that you hate our guts. We aren't very fond of you either. But what we CAN'T and WON'T live with is another attack like Sept. 11. Hate us all you want, and that's fine. But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth. Or at the very least, invade all over again and kill all of your leaders."
But I would suggest that you solve the problem of Iraq by pulling out of Iraq now and then watching to see what emerges as the new government. If, in the unlikely event of a new alQaeda government emerging, then deal with them as indicated above, tighten your home defences and guard against any imaginable threat. My prediction is, when and if another attack is mounted, you won't know where it's coming from before it hits.
Well, for one thing, your idea is simple. Why haven't the leaders of this country arrived at such a simple conclusion to this problem?
Just say no! Just pull out! ?
There has to be "more" to the story. If that 'more' is greed on the part of the USA ,then shame on us.
To play devil's advocate here for a minute, I think that the American gov. has always had some sort of altruistic intentions in the shadows of this conflict/war. We just don't hold that sort of power/hate that other folks think. I hold out hope that this administration did, at one time, want some sort of Democracy and civility to spring forth in the region of Iraqi. I do believe that. The problem is that Bush bit off too much....and now we are choking on that bite.
It seems to me, Michael, that your posts about America tend to imply that America is some sort of bad guy.....( we are not smart yes, I'll agree when it comes to such policies etc)...but we don't always hold ill-will intentions.
To pull out------then to let the dust fall-----then to warn others that we aren't gunna take crap anymore------lest we bomb their butts to hell---? Really, ??
But one attack like Sept. 11 from you and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.
We can't bomb the entire nation of squat, M-tee. Were you serious about that?
A slow pull out is what is needed here. Bush got us in this mess.
The whole thing is bad.....I knew that before we even invaded. I remember back in 02/03 hearing friends talk at parties and gatherings of their outrage and concern about this idea to invade Iraq. Talk was that Bush wasn't the smartest president to come down the pike. My gut reaction to an invasion back then was NOOooo .....Too much. Overload....wait....bad horizons....bad moon arisin'...
But, to no avail....Bush was wrong! imo
But, we can't just pull out and then a few years later bomb a nation off the face.... as you have offered, Micky tee, with all due respect.
I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think we can get out all together. Who doesn't want that, deeply in the heart....
My goodness, we should be taking care of our own... New Orleans for example. Katrina!
This country is in the adolescant stage of development....compared to Europe and Asia, etc.....and we are acting like brats, I agree...but we can grow out of this mess and mature, someday.
Hold some hope for us, M-Tee.... :)